Atheism & Abortion

Boston

You can't use severity to justify it. A relative of mine was offered an abortion* on the grounds that the child would be born disabled, she refused it. The child had health problems for the early part of his life, but with treatment and the like now leads a perfectly normal life. I spent most of the first years of my life partially to completely deaf. As such you're taking a gamble that the disability will be such that the child will have some reasonable quality of life. Thats a difficult thing to do, and I think making it out that the parents burden are the only deciding factors in that decision is disingenuous. I think it a valid decision to make to abort a disabled child for the reasons I outlined previous. Thats not to say its the right decision to make though, just that it is valid.

coffee_cake

Gurgle wrote: »

Call a spade a spade: Pro-abortion
Pro-abortion isn't about 'the rest of your life'. Its about the six months or so when pregnancy actually affects your life.

Pro-abortion is the belief that all pregnanices must be terminated and there is no choice. Pro-choice is about choice.
And pro-life is also just about those 6 months too - none of them really care about what happens after the birth.

Its all about the morality of convenience, you can justify anything that suits you. You can make your arguement that a zygote only becomes a human being when its becomes a foetus, or that a foetus isn't human until its born.

(to be duly ignored by those who it doesn't suit) ... Any other point to make the distinction is purely arbitrary.

Just like you'll duly ignore the other opinions as arbitrary.

also, noone is arguing that a fetus isn't human. Of course it has human dna, it's not a crocodile.
The question is whether it's a person.

Boston

bluewolf wrote: »

Pro-abortion is the belief that all pregnanices must be terminated and there is no choice.

Where do you get that notion?

Dave!

Gurgle wrote: »

Call a spade a spade: Pro-abortion

I'm afraid not. Pro-abortion means you support abortion. Pro-choice means you support abortion being one of your options. Nobody wants women to have to go through with an abortion. It can be fairly traumatising. So let's not spin terms any more than is necessary in order to paint us as murdering, pillaging, scumbags :rolleyes: "Pro choice" is no less nauseating a term than "pro life".

As to the rest of your post -- yeah because others don't think that every ejaculation deserves a funeral, we must be only concerned with convenience.

Rev Hellfire

Boston wrote: »

You can't use severity to justify it. A relative of mine was offered an abortion* on the grounds that the child would be born disabled, she refused it. The child had health problems for the early part of his life, but with treatment and the like now leads a perfectly normal life. I spent most of the first years of my life partially to completely deaf. As such you're taking a gamble that the disability will be such that the child will have some reasonable quality of life. Thats a difficult thing to do, and I think making it out that the parents burden are the only deciding factors in that decision is disingenuous. I think it a valid decision to make to abort a disabled child for the reasons I outlined previous. Thats not to say its the right decision to make though, just that it is valid.

Ahh I understand where you're coming from now. I misunderstood your position as one of the inconvenience to the parents as a valid reason for a termination.

Gurgle

Ciaran500 wrote: »

Just like "pro-life"

I agree, I would never describe myself as pro-life in an arguement on abortion. Among other reasons, because I detest the people who use that slogan on placards showing aborted foetuses.

bluewolf wrote:

Pro-abortion is the belief that all pregnanices must be terminated and there is no choice. Pro-choice is about choice.

DaveMcG wrote:

I'm afraid not. Pro-abortion means you support abortion. Pro-choice means you support abortion being one of your options.

lol, I was only expecting one twit to jump in and justify 'pro-choice' with the claim that 'pro-abortion' would make it mandatory :rolleyes:

DaveMcG wrote:

because others don't think that every ejaculation deserves a funeral, we must be only concerned with convenience

Dunno about you, but in my experience conception tends to occur after ejacuation (if it does occur). If you don't know the difference between ejaculation and conception you're not entitled to an opinion on abortion.:p

And yes, the abortion choice is all about convenience, as is convincing yourself that its ok.

Hivemind187

Just to clear something up for certain posters.

Pro-life: The side of the argument attempting to impose their belief system and will on others on the behalf of a clump of cells that may or may not be human. arguments like "Its a life at conception" fall down since about 80% of pregnancies are flushed before the end of the first trimester. Should we have funerals for these? How about "all life giving fluid is sacred!" which is another bloody minded and idiotic concept and if you believe it I'm off to the bathroom for a spot of genocide. At the end of the day, this side of hte argument, for whatever its reasons (religious, ignorance or just looking to exert authority over others) has no other possible end result than the continued subjugation of women, high death rates from coat-hanger abortions, ruined lives, lousy futures and contribution to over population.

Pro-choice: The side that feels that you should be able to choose, for yourself, whether or not abortion is the right thing - without inflicting your belief structure on anyone else. No one in the pro-choice camp is ever going to tell someone they must have an abortion only that it is their right to choose whether or not they want one and how they feel about the organism growing inside them - if someone feels abortion is wrong then thats fine, so long as they dont inflict there ideal on anyone else.

coffee_cake

Boston wrote: »

Where do you get that notion?

From a few people I've encountered who actually believe that way. I have no idea why.

lol, I was only expecting one twit to jump in and justify 'pro-choice' with the claim that 'pro-abortion' would make it mandatory

Correcting terminology isn't justifying the side of the argument.
And if you just came here to call people twits, you can head off again.

Rev Hellfire

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Pro-life: The side of the argument attempting to impose their belief system and will on others

Pro-Life does not imply a belief system, people may have taken a principled stance for example.

Hivemind187

Gurgle wrote: »

I agree, I would never describe myself as pro-life in an arguement on abortion. Among other reasons, because I detest the people who use that slogan on placards showing aborted foetuses.

lol, I was only expecting one twit to jump in and justify 'pro-choice' with the claim that 'pro-abortion' would make it mandatory :rolleyes:

Dunno about you, but in my experience conception tends to occur after ejacuation (if it does occur). If you don't know the difference between ejaculation and conception you're not entitled to an opinion on abortion.:p

And yes, the abortion choice is all about convenience, as is convincing yourself that its ok.

Not only are you insulting but you are ignorant.

Firstly, get a dictionary out and learn what the terms "pro" and "anti" mean because you need to brush up on the basics. Dave is right, "pro" abortion implies not only "no choice" but a mandatory position that all pregnancies be terminated. Confusing the issue by calling someone a twit for point out the inadequacies in your vocabulary is contemptible.

Abortion is a choice. Its reasoning or its cause are irrelevant because it is a choice, and one that you shouldnt be allowed to make for someone else since you dont understand the difference between "life" and "arbitrary conditions for human life".

For example, the genetic information held in a single gamete is enough to build a human being, albeit a clone of the parent. Conception is the point at which two gamete fuse their nuclei to create a zygote - a zygote is not a person, it is only a collection of cells containing the potential to be human (pretty much the same as a gamete). Your reference to ejaculation infers a typically male centric view of the human reproductive cycle.

I agree with you about the headers with their placards though.

Hivemind187

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Pro-Life does not imply a belief system, people may have taken a principled stance for example.

Sorry, my mistake I should have said "usually implies a belief system based on scientific ignorance, blind faith or inability to form an independant opinion".

There are pro-life types out their who have a considered opinion but in almost every case it is an emotional blindness that leads them to thier decision.

It also doesnt change the fact that "pro-life" people want to impose their ideals onto others. if you dont want to impose the ideals (beliefs) on others then you are pro-choice.

Hivemind187

Boston wrote: »

Where do you get that notion?

Because thats what the words mean.

Dave!

Gurgle wrote: »

lol, I was only expecting one twit to jump in and justify 'pro-choice' with the claim that 'pro-abortion' would make it mandatory :rolleyes:

That's probably because that's the implication of the term 'pro-abortion'. That's what it means. But I suspect that's gone right over your head.

By the way, insults validate your arguments to no end!

clally

Gurgle wrote: »

'Pro-choice', its such a lovely phrase. Gives a nice warm feeling of liberty, democracy and freedom. Probably the best PR trick ever pulled off to link it to killing unwanted babies.

Well I'm pro choice: If you choose not to have a child, don't get pregnant. If you screw up and get pregnant, then choose to give it up for adoption.

Oh the simplicity of it all! In real life... I've decided i don't want a child... i've decided i like sex;)... i've decided to have safe sex (condoms and pill at all times!)... if i "screw up" me not my partner of course and get pregnant.... i can "choose" to give it up for adoption.

From my understanding of what you've said you are effectively equating a choice to have sex (protected of course) with the choice to have a child.

For me a choice implies real options and my freedom to choose between them.

robindch

hivemind wrote:

Pro-life: The side of the argument attempting to impose their belief system and will on others on the behalf of a clump of cells that may or may not be human.
Pro-choice: The side that feels that you should be able to choose, for yourself, whether or not abortion is the right thing - without inflicting your belief structure on anyone else.

You're boo-phrasing the argument well past the point of being able to understand other people's position on it. A fairer analysis of the positions will give a symmetric argument something closer to the following:

Pro-life: the side of the argument which assumes that foetuses/cell-growths are live humans from the point of conception, and have therefore acquired human rights of their own, one right of which is to accept or reject any medical treatments with informed consent.

Pro-choice: the side of the argument which assumes that foetuses are not human from the point of conception, but from some later time (at which point they acquire right), and therefore foetuses/cell-growths have no independent rights of their own, and the mother may therefore exercise her own right to accept or reject any medical treatments with informed consent.

Careful symmetric framing doesn't generally happen. Instead, both sides straw-man the other, both describe their own arguments in black-and-white terms, both have a tendency to shout the meta-ideas of "rights" or "morals" without considering the basic physical realities of what's going on one way or the other, and to a great extent, do so with their fingers stuck in their ears.

.

Scofflaw

robindch wrote: »

You're boo-phrasing the argument well past the point of being able to understand other people's position on it. A fairer analysis of the positions will give a symmetric argument something closer to the following:

Pro-life: the side of the argument which assumes that foetuses/cell-growths are live humans from the point of conception, and have therefore acquired human rights of their own, one right of which is to accept or reject any medical treatments with informed consent.

Pro-choice: the side of the argument which assumes that foetuses are not human from the point of conception, but from some later time (at which point they acquire the right to live), and therefore foetuses/cell-growths have no independent rights of their own, the mother may therefore exercise her own right to accept or reject any medical treatments with informed consent.

Careful symmetric framing doesn't generally happen. Instead, both sides straw-man the other, both describe their own arguments in black-and-white terms, both have a tendency to shout the meta-ideas of "rights" or "morals" without considering the basic physical realities of what's going on one way or the other, and to a great extent, do so with their fingers stuck in their ears.

It's well-framed, and it points out the single underlying difference is whether the foetus is considered human from conception or from some later point.

Unfortunately, that's purely a matter of opinion.

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

Scofflaw wrote:

Unfortunately, that's purely a matter of opinion.

Indeed!

JimiTime

I have to say, in reading the various posts on this thread, I am surprised. Firstly i am surprised that there is no scientific answer to when a baby becomes a person, or a human being etc. I have always been under the impression that the pro-abortion side had some scientific fact that said the baby is not actually a baby until x time or something.
What 'I percieve' as regards the pro-abotion camp, is that they choose to believe that the baby is not a person. Even though they do not know this, they don't seem to mind taking the stance that its a risk worth taking, for want of a better term. I have to say I find this stance, providing I have percieved it correctly, very sad, and very baffling. It does seem like, ones own convieniance etc, is more important. Leaving my Chrisianity aside, and solely on the basis of the information thats has been presented here, I find even more so now, that there is absolutely no excuse for abortion. That is not to say that I would have no empathy towards an exceptional case such as a rape. Obviously, in such a circumstance, the trauma etc would be a huge factor, and a degree of understanding would have to be exhibited. But I'd have to say, while I'd understand it, i couldn't say that it was right. I don't think in such a circumstance, a woman should be judged for doing it. But I would not advise or encourage it.

Or have I missed something?

Boston

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Just to clear something up for certain posters.

Pro-life: The side of the argument attempting to impose their belief system and will on others on the behalf of a clump of cells that may or may not be human.

I don't believe my set of values should be informed on strangers, and certainly not by the state.

arguments like "Its a life at conception" fall down since about 80% of pregnancies are flushed before the end of the first trimester. Should we have funerals for these?

People who suffer miscarriages sometimes do this.

How about "all life giving fluid is sacred!" which is another bloody minded and idiotic concept and if you believe it I'm off to the bathroom for a spot of genocide.

None have made that argument on this thread

At the end of the day, this side of hte argument, for whatever its reasons (religious, ignorance or just looking to exert authority over others)

I'm not religious, I am highly informed on the issue, and I don't believe in abortion being a criminal act. I think you need to take a closer look at the two sides of this.

coffee_cake

JimiTime wrote: »

///pr-abortion camp, is that they choose to believe that the baby is not a person. Even though they do not know this, they don't seem to mind taking the stance that its a risk worth taking, for want of a better term.

if it doesn't have a brain, it's not a person.
And I'm pro-choice, not pro- abortion

Sangre

bluewolf wrote: »

if it doesn't have a brain, it's not a person.
And I'm pro-choice, not pro- abortion

I've a genuine question for you bluewolf.

What is your opinion on abortion for severely mentally disabled foetuses then? That is, they will probably live but will be severely mentally retarded. Or do you classify severe mentally handicap to be still some form of brain activity worthy of life?

coffee_cake

Sangre wrote: »

I've a genuine question for you bluewolf.

What is your opinion on abortion for severely mentally disabled foetuses then? That is, they will probably live but will be severely mentally retarded. Or do you classify severe mentally handicap to be still some form of brain activity worthy of life?

I have no idea, tbh.
I'd say it's up to the parents choosing but within a time limit. I'm assuming one can find out about handicaps early?
I use the brain criterion to mean I think abortion is ok before the fetus is much developed.
Well, not "ok", I'd prefer if there were none, but a possible option.

Gurgle

clally wrote: »

For me a choice implies real options and my freedom to choose between them.

And so you choose to find abortion morally acceptable.
Convenient, huh?

Scofflaw

Gurgle wrote: »

And so you choose to find abortion morally acceptable.
Convenient, huh?

Gurgle, you're welcome to discuss the issue, but what you're doing is not discussion. You're not going to persuade anyone by emotionally attacking them, you're just going to drag the debate down to insult and counter-insult.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

JimiTime wrote: »

I have to say, in reading the various posts on this thread, I am surprised. Firstly i am surprised that there is no scientific answer to when a baby becomes a person, or a human being etc. I have always been under the impression that the pro-abortion side had some scientific fact that said the baby is not actually a baby until x time or something.

'Personhood' is not a scientific concept, but a legal one. The law decides, say, that a foetus is not a legal person until it is viable independent of its mother, and leaves it to scientists to determine when that is.

JimiTime wrote: »

What 'I percieve' as regards the pro-abotion camp, is that they choose to believe that the baby is not a person. Even though they do not know this, they don't seem to mind taking the stance that its a risk worth taking, for want of a better term. I have to say I find this stance, providing I have percieved it correctly, very sad, and very baffling. It does seem like, ones own convieniance etc, is more important.

Again, this is a statement of position that completely trivialises parenthood. No-one here has argued that abortions are a good thing, or should be undertake in order to avoid 'inconvenience'. Having a child as a single mother at the age of say 20 is not 'inconvenient', but life-changing. I find it equally baffling that you appear not to take this into account at all.

JimiTime wrote: »

Leaving my Chrisianity aside, and solely on the basis of the information thats has been presented here, I find even more so now, that there is absolutely no excuse for abortion. That is not to say that I would have no empathy towards an exceptional case such as a rape. Obviously, in such a circumstance, the trauma etc would be a huge factor, and a degree of understanding would have to be exhibited. But I'd have to say, while I'd understand it, i couldn't say that it was right. I don't think in such a circumstance, a woman should be judged for doing it. But I would not advise or encourage it.

Or have I missed something?

Well, I feel that you are glossing over the impact of not having an abortion - on the mother, the father, their families, and the wider community. I also feel that you have missed the essentially legal nature of the concept of personhood.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dades

Gurgle wrote: »

And so you choose to find abortion morally acceptable.

And you may choose to find it morally unacceptable.
That's how choice works.

Nevyn

Scofflaw wrote: »

I think that's fair, and I imagine most of us draw the line somewhere. I'd draw a dotted line at the point where the foetus is naturally viable independent of the mother.

However, I don't want this initially to become an argument over where the line should be drawn. I'm interested in the reasons for opposition at the stage where the foetus is clearly dependent on the mother.

cordially,
Scofflaw

A lot of those arguements and indeed what the law in the UK ( which is 40 years old this month )is based off is the mental and emotional duress continuing the pregnacy will have on the woman.

Gurgle wrote: »

'Pro-choice', its such a lovely phrase. Gives a nice warm feeling of liberty, democracy and freedom. Probably the best PR trick ever pulled off to link it to killing unwanted babies.

No. Pro choice also respects and supports the other choices a woman or a couple will make when they are in a crises pregnancy situation.
In my time I have as well as given infomation about contacting the agencies here for referal for a preabortion constult given out information on keeping contuning the pregnancy and the list of suports for those wishing to keep the child and those who wish to consider adoption.

Gurgle wrote: »

Well I'm pro choice: If you choose not to have a child, don't get pregnant. If you screw up and get pregnant, then choose to give it up for adoption. Theres thousands of couples in this country who would give up everything to have a child, but the only choice they have is to spend years trying to adopt one from asia.

We are still in this country suffering from the blacklash from the home for wayward girls, the laundries and the adoption scandals. Yes there should be more support for those who do give up thier child for adoption and they should be lauded for doing so and not as I have heard in once case spat on and abused for doing so by te nighbours and called un natural and worse then a person who has had an abortion.

Gurgle wrote: »

Call a spade a spade: Pro-abortion
Pro-abortion isn't about 'the rest of your life'. Its about the six months or so when pregnancy actually affects your life. Its about the stigma attached to having a baby and giving it up. You can have an abortion without anyone knowing, you can't hide a 9-month bump.

It is more then six more months, it take two years for the pelvis to realign after a birth and there are many changes to a womans body which means it is never the same ever again, strech marks being the most minor.

Yes there is that stigma and it is shocking and I would love to see those that are pro life campaginers working to change that and that would be damn useful.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, I feel that you are glossing over the impact of not having an abortion - on the mother, the father, their families, and the wider community. I also feel that you have missed the essentially legal nature of the concept of personhood.

There are families torn apart over a daughter 'trying' to give up a child for adoption there can be unbelievible ammount of pressure and I know personally of two cases where the grand parents went and applied through the courts to take custody of thier grandchild. In once case it was denied in the other they were going to throw out thier 19 year old and disown her when she was most vunerible if the infant was not brougth home.

Not a lot of choice there.

clally

Gurgle wrote: »

And so you choose to find abortion morally acceptable.
Convenient, huh?

In line with Scofflaws comment i do not wish to engage in insults. I think this is an important discussion and one which benefits from respectful debate from both sides.

In answer to your question, yes i do choose to find abortion morally acceptable and while i remain open to consider arguments against my position it would take a lot for me to change my mind.

Why have i made this decision? Because to me it is morally unacceptable to force a woman to carry a child against her will. It is unacceptable to me that her body is not her own, that the control we all enjoy over our person be taken away from her. That she be forced to go through pregnancy and child birth and ultimately be mother to a child.

Also, I think your use of the word convenient is highly insensitive. It is convenient when you work around the corner from your house, having an abortion whatever the circumstances is not something that can be described in the same way. It is a big decision and one that the majority of women and indeed men do not undertake lightly.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Firstly i am surprised that there is no scientific answer to when a baby becomes a person, or a human being etc.

A "being" isn't a scientifically agreed definition, on either side, so I'm not sure why you would be surprised by this. Neither the side that supports the availability of abortion (pro-abortion) or the side that wishes abortion to remain illegal (anti-abortion) have a scientific answer to why a certain stage is to be considered a "person" rather than just a form of human life (which the sperm and egg are).

JimiTime wrote: »

I have always been under the impression that the pro-abortion side had some scientific fact that said the baby is not actually a baby until x time or something.

They do, but how they define what is a human being is not scientific. They can scientifically determine at what point the foetus reaches the stage the pick (as can the anti-abortion side), but there is no scientific reason to pick that stage as having a particular significance or any. The reasons are ethical and philosophical, not scientific.

For example, if someone holds as I do that the valuable part of a human being is the consciousness contained in their brain, science can tell you when the foetus doesn't have a brain, and is getting better and saying when the brain starts to function.

But the question still comes back to why are we deciding that the brain is the valuable part of a human being, and therefore worthy of rights. Science won't tell you that.

JimiTime wrote: »

What 'I percieve' as regards the pro-abotion camp, is that they choose to believe that the baby is not a person. Even though they do not know this, they don't seem to mind taking the stance that its a risk worth taking, for want of a better term.

They do know this. A zygote doesn't have a brain, it doesn't have a consciousness or ability to form consciousness. Therefore it isn't yet a person, according to the reasons I and others (I think bluewolf) consider a person to be valuable . Killing it is perfectly fine because you are not destroying something of strong value since it doesn't yet possess "personhood" It is like killing hair cells.

JimiTime wrote: »

I find even more so now, that there is absolutely no excuse for abortion.

The accuse for abortion is that a person, with rights attached to that personhood has not yet been created.

This of it as the reverse of pulling the plug on a brain dead patient.

JimiTime wrote: »

That is not to say that I would have no empathy towards an exceptional case such as a rape. Obviously, in such a circumstance, the trauma etc would be a huge factor, and a degree of understanding would have to be exhibited.

Personally I think the argument that the circumstances of the sexual intercourse has bearing on the abortion issue is ridiculous. Whether or not the child was the product of a rape or not has absolutely no bearing on whether or not the child is a person, or at what stage they become a person.

I would be as horrified with someone saying that it is only ok to abort this child if the child is the product of a rape as I would be with saying that its ok to kill a 2 month old because she is the product of a rape.

JimiTime wrote: »

Or have I missed something?

You have missed the argument of why a human life form can exist without being a person.

As I mentioned it is helpful to think about it as the reverse of a brain dead person. A brain dead person is considered legally and ethically dead. Despite this there body is often functioning in a some what normal fashion. Everything is working except for their brain.

So why is that person, who is still technically human and alive, considered a dead human being?

Hivemind187

Sorry, but I still say that all but a few of you are missing the point.

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.

And before you all start whinging that I dont understand the argument believe me when I am just as aware, if not more so, than the rest of you.

If you dont want to have an abortion or would oppose it personally yet you would not impose that position on another person you are PRO-CHOICE.

If you believe that you have the right to impose your ideals on another person regardless of their feelings or the evidence they can show you in support of their choice then you are PRO-LIFE.

It is not a question of anything else other than the right to make decisions for yourself and the demand to make decisions for others.