Abortion

Sam Vimes

Ciaran500 wrote: »

Bull****. Complete and utter bollocks, the same argument is trotted out by religious people cause they can't see the other side of an argument. Just cause you feel so strongly one way about something doesn't mean someone else can't feel just as strongly the other way.

I don't know if you're calling me religious but I'm a steadfast atheist

People can of course believe the opposite to me very strongly but when there are multiple different, often contradictory definitions coming out and everyone has their own opinion on when they personally think it's ok, it has an air of clutching at straws to me

Sam Vimes

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

What???

You clearly don't think it is black and white, as you said you are gray on the subject of ECPs. Some pro-lifers would be appalled at this stance. You are saying that there is merit in aborting a fetus before it can feel pain.

The only difference between your stance and mine is where the lines in the sand are drawn. Your stance is just another shade of gray to mine. Which is why pro-choice is the only acceptable option as no one person should enforce their shade of gray on another persons individual freedoms.

I said I can see how the argument has some merit, not that it's right

Edit: and this is the point where I bring up NAMBLA, the north american man boy love association. They see nothing wrong with having sex with young boys. Should we enforce our shade of grey on them?

philologos

Ciaran500 wrote: »

Bull****. Complete and utter bollocks, the same argument is trotted out by religious people cause they can't see the other side of an argument. Just cause you feel so strongly one way about something doesn't mean someone else can't feel just as strongly the other way.

Emotional response. Nobody has mentioned God in this thread so far. Infact as a Christian I could have argued this from a God point of view if I wanted to, but I want to show as many people as possible why it is wrong it is best to employ a secular view. I do have religious beliefs, and I don't deny this and I won't deny this. It is clear to me that this is clearly irrational and that pro-choice views make little or no sense.

Goduznt Xzst

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I don't know if you're calling me religious but I'm a steadfast atheist

Well you can see why they'd be confused. You are arguing about as effectively as a Christian. For example

Sam Vimes wrote: »

But the position of pro choice people is generally that it's just a clump of cells that can be removed with no moral problems. Their actions and their statements don't match up, no one has ever soul searched over having an in grown toe nail removed or committed suicide over a haircut, unless it was a particularly bad one :P

The way I see it if a woman feels an ounce of guilt or regret over an abortion then she didn't actually believe what she was saying but went ahead anyway, and that makes her culpable

A Christian might say:

But the position of Atheists is generally that belief in God can be removed with no moral problems. Their actions and their statements don't match up, no one has ever soul searched over having not believed in fairies or committed suicide by not believing in Santa, unless it was a particularly bad Christmas :P

The way I see it if an Atheist feels an ounce of guilt or regret over leaving Christianity then they didn't actually believe what they where saying but went ahead anyway, and that makes them culpable in the eyes of God

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I said I can see how the argument has some merit, not that it's right

Precisely, you aren't saying it's wrong either, you are on the fence which makes you "gray"... which you already admitted to. I am neither for nor against abortion myself, my opinion on abortion is gray. I am however for individual freedom of choice in this matter. I want the freedom to choose for myself and thus I wish for all of humanity to be given this freedom of choice also.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I want to show as many people as possible why it is wrong it is best to employ a secular view.

This is true. As soon as you mention god you've lost the debate. "It's wrong cos god says so" doesn't fly anymore thankfully

Sam Vimes

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Well you can see why they'd be confused. You are arguing about as effectively as a Christian. For example



A Christian might say:

But the position of Atheists is generally that belief in God can be removed with no moral problems. Their actions and their statements don't match up, no one has ever soul searched over having not believed in fairies or committed suicide by not believing in Santa, unless it was a particularly bad Christmas :P

well that wouldn't be true. Many people have searched their soul over the non existence of god

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

The way I see it if an Atheist feels an ounce of guilt or regret over leaving Christianity then they didn't actually believe what they where saying but went ahead anyway, and that makes them culpable in the eyes of God

That would be true. If they don't believe in god then there is no reason to feel guilt for having rejected christianity

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Precisely, you aren't saying it's wrong either, you are on the fence which makes you "gray"... which you already admitted to. I am neither for nor against abortion myself, my opinion on abortion is gray. I am however for individual freedom of choice in this matter. I want the freedom to choose for myself and thus I wish for all of humanity to be given this freedom of choice also.

I said the contraceptive pill was a grey area because it's a contraceptive, as in it prevents conception. I have no problem with preventing conception, that's the same thing a condom does

I then went on to say that I can see some merit in doing it before the foetus is aware, ie I can see their point but then I outlined several problems with that stance and I don't agree with it. Sorry for the confusion

Ciaran500

Jakkass wrote: »

Emotional response. Nobody has mentioned God in this thread so far. Infact as a Christian I could have argued this from a God point of view if I wanted to, but I want to show as many people as possible why it is wrong it is best to employ a secular view. I do have religious beliefs, and I don't deny this and I won't deny this. It is clear to me that this is clearly irrational and that pro-choice views make little or no sense.

Religion was just another example of a subject that has people completely divided, I wasn't trying to bring it into the abortion argument at all, I wasn't even trying to get into the abortion argument.

The "I'm right, everyone else is just fooling themselves" argument is what pissed me off and got me to post, I see it brought out so often and its ridiculous.

JC 2K3

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The way I see it if a woman feels an ounce of guilt or regret over an abortion then she didn't actually believe what she was saying but went ahead anyway, and that makes her culpable

Guilt can be societally induced.

In a hardcore Catholic society, one might feel guilt for masturbating, or taking the name of the "lord" in vain, even if they didn't really feel that what they were doing was wrong, because of the effect societal consensus has on people.

Sam Vimes

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Guilt can be societally induced.

In a hardcore Catholic society, one might feel guilt for masturbating, or taking the name of the "lord" in vain, even if they didn't really feel that what they were doing was wrong, because of the effect societal consensus has on people.

But I have to ask myself how someone can bring themselves to end another human life if they're not absolutely convinced that there's nothing wrong with it. It's not quite the same as rattling off a few knuckle children

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

This is true. As soon as you mention god you've lost the debate. "It's wrong cos god says so" doesn't fly anymore thankfully

Well, it flies in Christian societies, however not when people don't share your beliefs.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Guilt can be societally induced.

Fair enough. Laws in the State can also be societally induced this doesn't make them any less valid.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

In a hardcore Catholic society, one might feel guilt for masturbating, or taking the name of the "lord" in vain, even if they didn't really feel that what they were doing was wrong, because of the effect societal consensus has on people.

I disagree here. You have guilt precisely because you think that doing those things were wrong. The conscience is an indicator of the moral opinions that are held by individuals. Suppressing it isn't really something that should be encouraged. If people are guilty for saying the name of the Lord in vain, or masturbating it is because they do feel it was wrong.

JC 2K3

The idea of a "conscience" isn't defined well enough to the point where its possible to comment on whether a person feels regret soley because they actually think something's wrong or because society largely believes what they've done is wrong despite not actually believing that what they have done is wrong.

Malari

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The way I see it if a woman feels an ounce of guilt or regret over an abortion then she didn't actually believe what she was saying but went ahead anyway, and that makes her culpable

C'mon, you could say that about a lot of major decisions! You can buy a car and then realise money is tight. If you feel a bit of regret it doesn't mean what you did was wrong, you are just thinking about what the consequences would have been if you hadn't done it.

Please don't say "a car is not a baby" - I'm not saying that, I'm just trying to say that your reasoning is flawed.

philologos

JC 2K3 wrote: »

The idea of a "conscience" isn't defined well enough to the point where its possible to comment on whether a person feels regret soley because they actually think something's wrong or because society largely believes what they've done is wrong despite not actually believing that what they have done is wrong.

If it isn't well defined enough why are you suggesting that it is defined to the extent that someone can feel regret without thinking that it is wrong? If we don't know surely you cannot say that you know this much either.

Malari: Buying a car doesn't effect anyone else but you, aborting a child denies another their rights. Huge difference. The latter is worthy of condemnation.

Malari

Jakkass wrote: »

If it isn't well defined enough why are you suggesting that it is defined to the extent that someone can feel regret without thinking that it is wrong? If we don't know surely you cannot say that you know this much either.

Malari: Buying a car doesn't effect anyone else but you, aborting a child denies another their rights. Huge difference. The latter is worthy of condemnation.

Jakkass: Read what I said. I deliberately highlighted the fact that I am not making a direct comparison. I am saying that the reasoning behind assuming guilt equals culpability is totally wrong.

Tar.Aldarion

I'm not a fan of it as in my eyes you are end a life, if it doesn't survive on it's own fair enough.

philologos

Right, but the guilt argument isn't really effective when we already have an understanding of what human life is and what human rights are. People have already defined how best we should interact with others in our species.

Goduznt Xzst

Sam Vimes wrote: »

well that wouldn't be true. Many people have searched their soul over the non existence of god

How is it you can see the errancy of this argument when I phrase it from a Christians viewpoint, but you cannot see the errancy of your own argument that you phrased from a pro-lifers viewpoint My rephrasing of it was to show you the wild assumptions you are making to back up your own opinion. If you can see why it would be wrong for a Christian to make such assumptions as an Atheist yourself, why can't you see why it is wrong of a pro-lifer to also do so of people who choose to get abortions?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Sorry for the confusion

You mean backpedaling. I can see this progressing to the point where you are saying "by merit I meant I am vehemently opposed to ECP's being used on a fetus, regardless of whether it feels pain or not".

I, however, am done. All I ask is for you to think about your reasons why you wish to have the freedom to not believe in religious dogmas that tell you will be blood guilty if you do not believe and speak of salvation through Jesus and then wonder why a person wishes to have the freedom to not be told by pro-lifers that they are blood guilty for aborting a fetus that they do not view as a human life.

Berty

Just buy the god damn pill on the internet for €48 and get it over with.

Who cares about pro abortion / anti abortion people. They are not the ones pregnant.

Its the persons own decision in the end.

philologos

Berty wrote: »

Its the persons own decision in the end.

Just think for one second.

It is the mothers choice to decide life or death for the child? Just how would you feel if your mother was deciding whether or not to keep you alive right now?

Berty

Jakkass wrote: »

Just think for one second.

It is the mothers choice to decide life or death for the child? Just how would you feel if your mother was deciding whether or not to keep you alive right now?

Has your mother never told you,

"I brought you into this world and can take you out of this world just as fast"

Dudess

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Hate tossers who say its not murder when it couldn't be anything but.

One of said "tossers" here: well murder is the deliberate taking of a life, so wouldn't that depend on when you believe life begins? I do not believe life begins until long after conception, therefore I do not consider early stage abortion to be murder.

Jakkass wrote: »

I can't change my standards on killing even if it is for rape. Death is death and it is as unreasonable during rape as not. Adoption allows for the mother not to have to keep the child, and it allows the child to live as it should within the world. I don't personally believe that anyone should have the right to abortion except in situations where the mother is likely to die so that both will die.

But there's also the trauma of carrying the child for nine months - imagine the trauma of being pregnant with a rapist's baby at all, nevermind nine months - this on top of the trauma of the rape itself. Then there's the birth. Then there are the post-natal changes such as lactation. Then there are the mixed emotions of handing over the baby (possibly guilt for not loving the baby enough). People who argue adoption is a decent alternative always seem to brush over these things. It's not just a case of "carry the baby to birth, hand the baby over"... as they well know.
If the raped pregnant woman was suicidal, would you deem the pregnancy a risk to her life?

stovelid

Jakkass wrote: »

Isn't the body of the mother also within a nation? Again "not viable outside that area". The life of anyone is not viable if their parents do not provide for them when they are born either?

Again, you can't really compare the existence of a living, sentient human in a wider conglomeration of other such humans as akin to having a foetus growing inside you.

Jakkass wrote: »

Surely they aren't able to survive outside of the body of it's mother without it's mother before a certain age either? .

Not really the same. It could survive if cared for by another person. It's viable versus possible, really. Basically, life outside the womb is not viable up to a certain point; after a certain point, it's possible, albeit dependent on others.

Anyhoo, the semantics are only useful to a point here.

I've said my bit.

I'm not a cheerleader for abortion. My personal opinion on abortion is probably close to yours in some ways, but I don't abjure it to the point where I impose that view on others.

Basically, there is such genuine widespread relativism re: abortion and 'killing' that I feel nothing will ever fully change that.

Tar.Aldarion

Dudess wrote: »

One of said "tossers" here: well murder is the deliberate taking of a life, so wouldn't that depend on when you believe life begins? I do not believe life begins until long after conception, therefore I do not consider early stage abortion to be murder.

But who gets to decide when it is alive? What makes it alive, the heartbeat, the brainwave? Does it have to be sentient to be alive?
In the UK 1 in 30 foetus' that were aborted simply because they would have been disabled/impaired at birth were born alive. I can only guess how many healthy ones are still born alive after an abortion trying to keep alive itself. I know people were born premature(well like two) and could have been legally aborted at the time, I can't see how these people were not alive before birth and were after, and it would not be murder to abort them before hand. Dunno, it doesn't sit right with me. I just have trouble seeing how something, that left alone to develop, will be a human, is not alive until a certain part of it is developed. Certainly it might not feel it's death but I think it's a death nonetheless.

AckwelFoley

Abortions ftw

Its simply like sucking out the insides of a soft boiled egg.

/enter rants "ITS A HUMAN LOIFE!"

No its not. Not until it can breath and fart.

Dudess

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

But who gets to decide when it is alive?

That's the problem.

What makes it alive?

In my opinion: having nerve endings.

In the UK 1 in 30 foetus' that were aborted simply because they would have been disabled/impaired at birth were born alive. I can only guess how many healthy ones are still born alive after an abortion trying to keep alive itself. I know people were born premature(well like two) and could have been legally aborted at the time, I can't see how these people were not alive before birth and were after, and it would not be murder to abort them before hand. Dunno, it doesn't sit right with me. I just have trouble seeing how something, that left alone to develop, will be a human, is not alive until a certain part of it is developed. Certainly it might not feel it's death but I think it's a death nonetheless.

These appear to be late terminations - I am not in favour of those.

philologos

Dudess wrote: »

But there's also the trauma of carrying the child for nine months - imagine the trauma of being pregnant with a rapist's baby at all, nevermind nine months - this on top of the trauma of the rape itself. Then there's the birth. Then there are the post-natal changes such as lactation. Then there are the mixed emotions of handing over the baby (possibly guilt for not loving the baby enough). People who argue adoption is a decent alternative always seem to brush over these things. It's not just a case of "carry the baby to birth, hand the baby over"... as they well know.
If the raped pregnant woman was suicidal, would you deem the pregnancy a risk to her life?

I don't take these things lightly, however I do not think that trauma enables someone to kill another person in any circumstance. I've already said I would be branded a hypocrite if I upheld that killing was wrong in situation A, and then said it wasn't in situation B given that the foetus are both still biologically human lives. I can't just go that far. Psychological counselling and adoption are still the only fair solution to both, or the reasonable via media.

bronte

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't take these things lightly, however I do not think that trauma enables someone to kill another person in any circumstance. I've already said I would be branded a hypocrite if I upheld that killing was wrong in situation A, and then said it wasn't in situation B given that the foetus are both still biologically human lives. I can't just go that far. Psychological counselling and adoption are still the only fair solution to both, or the reasonable via media.

Are you male or female?

philologos

bronte wrote: »

Are you male or female?

I knew this was going to come. People saying that I can't value human life because I'm a male. How ridiculous is that anyway? I support common human rights, it shouldn't matter what gender I am.

bronte

Jakkass wrote: »

I knew this was going to come. People saying that I can't value human life because I'm a male. How ridiculous is that anyway? I support common human rights, it shouldn't matter what gender I am.

I honestly think you have no idea about pregnancy if you are discussing it as such.
I think you can definitely value human life..no doubt about it. Carrying a child is a different story.

WindSock

If you can take a foetus out of my womb and science can have it survive and develop without my womb then fair enough, it's yours. Until then, if it is utterly dependent on me, then it's mine to keep or not to keep.