Abortion
- Thread starter TinyBubbles
- Start date
I am pro choice as long as it is legally acceptable for a practitioner of abortion. So my answer really depnds on what the current legal system mandates. However, the method of abortion is rather barbaric and I wouldn't mind seeing something less atrocious. Eventually I could see some sort of stasis/cryogenic repository being set up for embryonic donation by unfit/unwilling mothers, that would be fairly hard to fund though, perhaps if it became easier for adoption. I don't particularly like the idea of abortion. I would never personally choose abortion with a spouse unless there was some major complication. However, I don't think it is my place to determine the choice of someone else.
The key point here is when does it stop being about 1 person and start being about 2, and what rights are each life entitled to? When does life start? But that begs the question of what life is. Some say conception, as soon as the egg is fertilized. So with the idea of conception bringing life, the egg has at that point gained human rights. But we aren't really protecting the rights of a fertilized egg, we are protecting the rights of a human fertilized egg. In an egg or embryonic state, it would seem as though some sort of DNA classification would be needed, such as a holy sequence of DNA, the magic code that gains protection of our own.
With 'protecting' against the choice to abort, what happens to the population? What kind of suffering are we potentially forcing upon the unborn child by mandating it exist to be raised with unfit parents, or being tossed around orphanage to orphanage? For many, any life at all is MUCH more valuable than to be free from suffering.
Essentially, by outlawing abortion we are attempting to alter fate by controlling that which would hinder 'fate.' Isn't our idea of preventing death and preventing abortion in a way altering the fate in itself? One would argue that the child would live if not at the hands of another human in abortion, but that is a conceptualized fate, not the fate that would normally occur if the child were to be aborted. So it must come down to religious or legal mandate. Man does not take the life of another man.
Why rights at conception? What is it about DNA mixing and cells splitting that is so significant? I suppose at that point becaues the egg develops on its own (Well besides dependence upon the resources that the mother's body gives) Others argue that abortion shouldn't inflict pain on the fetus, which depends on when an embryo could cognitively register pain.
From the dualist mindset, when does an egg/embryo gain a soul?
I know a lot of people that want to adopt, why is it made so hard?
Is there something wrong with our society if no one is willing or able to care for a child that is not wanted?
The key point here is when does it stop being about 1 person and start being about 2, and what rights are each life entitled to? When does life start? But that begs the question of what life is. Some say conception, as soon as the egg is fertilized. So with the idea of conception bringing life, the egg has at that point gained human rights. But we aren't really protecting the rights of a fertilized egg, we are protecting the rights of a human fertilized egg. In an egg or embryonic state, it would seem as though some sort of DNA classification would be needed, such as a holy sequence of DNA, the magic code that gains protection of our own.
With 'protecting' against the choice to abort, what happens to the population? What kind of suffering are we potentially forcing upon the unborn child by mandating it exist to be raised with unfit parents, or being tossed around orphanage to orphanage? For many, any life at all is MUCH more valuable than to be free from suffering.
Essentially, by outlawing abortion we are attempting to alter fate by controlling that which would hinder 'fate.' Isn't our idea of preventing death and preventing abortion in a way altering the fate in itself? One would argue that the child would live if not at the hands of another human in abortion, but that is a conceptualized fate, not the fate that would normally occur if the child were to be aborted. So it must come down to religious or legal mandate. Man does not take the life of another man.
Why rights at conception? What is it about DNA mixing and cells splitting that is so significant? I suppose at that point becaues the egg develops on its own (Well besides dependence upon the resources that the mother's body gives) Others argue that abortion shouldn't inflict pain on the fetus, which depends on when an embryo could cognitively register pain.
From the dualist mindset, when does an egg/embryo gain a soul?
I know a lot of people that want to adopt, why is it made so hard?
Is there something wrong with our society if no one is willing or able to care for a child that is not wanted?
There is something about abortion that I find chillingly unsettling.
It somehow disturbs me more than people who mutilate themselves - because in these procedures what is being mangled isn't even one's own body, but one's progeny. The chills this gives me is on par with cases in which the frail elderly are bludgeoned to death for petty theft/gain.
*shiver*
It somehow disturbs me more than people who mutilate themselves - because in these procedures what is being mangled isn't even one's own body, but one's progeny. The chills this gives me is on par with cases in which the frail elderly are bludgeoned to death for petty theft/gain.
*shiver*
Agreed, death for modern convenience is disgustingly unsettling.
I guess we could say that prevention of the loss of a standard of living is petty gain, yes.
Had to stop there for just a second. However, I am tired and do not have the energy to address this properly tonight. I, personally, have noticed a moral decaying of the USA since its inception. I do not believe it was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs alone. Christianity is a choice and has thus not placed its ideals and laws on society, said society being a democracy(or at least something still resembling one). There was a great deal of influence, but now I see a falling away from that influence. I see this as poor judgment.
I am not arguing but rather stating the way I see it, feeling the need to add to this post just a wee bit.
May as well add to the greater subject here my personal views, or at least touch on them. My opinion and strong feelings start with the word "responsibility". Abortion should not be the toilet paper that cleans up the "mess" when someone did not take responsibility for their actions. Ooops; guess we can get an abortion? I see that as cold-blooded. Play it back a few decades and folk mostly did not have sex before marriage like they do for pleasure and sport nowadays. Sex was taken differently. The cry for abortion has mainly come from those that have not taken responsibility for their actions. Used precautions and still ooops? It is a risk people take and they well know it.
I do believe there to be a grey area in certain situations, now that abortion has been added to medical terms and such. There most certainly may be exceptions, though they should be considered separately with due diligence.
Had an abortion and feel bad about it? I am truly sorry for you and I think it something I could forgive if it were up to me to do so. Don't beat yourself up any more about it. I see that as a form of mental repentance.
Don't care? I think you may need to rethink the importance of your stance regarding something so intense. We are talking about a life: human life, to be more precise. Some people like this don't believe in the death penalty and I really get confused trying to type that mentality.
I think it difficult at best trying to raise children properly regarding this while parents run the streets. I also see it a more direct assault against America by the TV and media over the years. We teach by example if we do it well, but somewhere someone has been telling everyone it is just fine and alright so don't worry about it.
A child is the continuation of the life of its parents, being part of the two. I was always taught children to be brought into this world through love.
I like aeon's post and admire that mindset.
I think it's really interesting how people can say:
Really? Which part was the moral part starting out? Slavery? Mass genocide of Native Americans? Women being treated as property? Children being made to work in horrifically dangerous and grueling conditions? Gays humiliated, beaten, denied opportunities, and/or being murdered for coming out in past decades? etc. etc. etc..
Really? Which part was the moral part starting out? Slavery? Mass genocide of Native Americans? Women being treated as property? Children being made to work in horrifically dangerous and grueling conditions? Gays humiliated, beaten, denied opportunities, and/or being murdered for coming out in past decades? etc. etc. etc..
What is your definition of being morally corrupt?
Here's mine.
For me, its anything which breaks the 10 commandments. Considering that every human being during his or her life time has broken at least one of these commandments, whether in practice or thought, is morally corrupt. Abortion is counted as an act of murder according to the 10 commandments. This is my personal opinion and I sincerely believe that everyone is entitled to have one.
I try to approach situations from multiple different points of views so I can come up with the best answer, which not only comes from my beliefs but from common sense and life observation.
The only time in my mind where I would agree with abortion, is if both the child and the mother were both in danger of dying, again this would not be my own personal choice If I ever found myself to be in the same situation, but this is the only time I could have sympathy towards mother for making the choice.
I realize how easy it is for me to say this now, as I have never been in a situation like this.
I hope that I never will find myself in that position and I feel for others that currently are, but death is not the only option and should not even be considered to be the first.
Abortion to me shows how much value an individual is willing to put on life.
Not just on their own but on the life of others.
"There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle." - Albert Einstein
Last edited:
That's a little far fetched for me. Someone would have to believe in fate to agree with the idea that an abortion will change the future of mankind as we know it (or at least the lives of hundreds of people). As i don't believe in fate, destiny, karma, or anything remotely like that, this reasoning seems absurd. I don't believe other people should have the right to dictate what a woman can or can not do with her body simple as that. Until a fetus can survive outside the womb it is part of the mother and it is up to her to do with it what she will. Let me clarify on thing: This does not mean I agree with late term abortions. At that point the child could survive outside of the womb, and termination is simply overkill. However, when a fetus still needs the mother to survive it is part of the mother. It doesn't have rights. The mother has rights. It is her choice whether to protect and nurture throughout the pregnancy or to terminate with in the early months. Whether the termination is due to health issues or emotional issues doesn't matter. No one should have the right to tell a woman that she has to have a child she doesn't want.
To clarify, I meant that the topic was like asking about politics and religion and tends to be a hot topic and full of angst in general, not for me personally.
My first point is that abortion exists. Rationally, the only recourse is to find mutally acceptable laws, rules and regulations that satisfy the needs of society at large to deal with abortion. We tend to spin our wheels by bogging ourselves down with right and wrong stances when we need to find acceptable solutions. I have never met anyone pro-choice or pro-life who believes abortion is a good solution. Rather the differences tend to hinge on the idea of personal choice and individual rights and whether somebody else has the right to determine another's choices in life.
Second point, I don't support any stance that is driven by Judeo-Christian beliefs alone. I am not asserting that anti-abortion stances are all thus. I am stating that I don't support the creation of laws and rules based on religious ideals.
Had an abortion? No. My feelings are not derived from personal experience but from my own personal beliefs on the subject. Don't care? Perhaps not in the way you understand care. I would rather solve an issue than win a philosophical or moral argument. I feel no need to foist my morals on others or society at large. My beliefs are firm and not contingent upon other's actions or acceptance. I accept the responsibility for my choices in life and will allow others to live their lives as they see fit not as I believe they should.
+1
As much as I believe that abortion is wrong, I also believe that people should be allowed to live their own lives and make their own decisions. A personal opinion is not law, but we also have the right to express it, despite how much we may disagree with it.
Good post.
Last edited:
- Mar 17, 2010
- 4,872
- 1,225
- 766
- MBTI
- ????
- Enneagram
- 9w1
Ah, well you see, I have the freedom to live my life how I see fit without the fear of egotistic being sending me to hell and as such don't see stupid things as worshiping something else, working on Sabbath, or not honouring your parents (whatever the fuck that means) as morally corrupt.
I haven't stolen, raped, nor murdered and neither has a good portion of the human race.
Typically I would agree, I don't mind what you believe so long as it doesn't negatively affect other people. I consider a fetus to be a person. If someone else's belief was that they should be free to harm whomever they please, I would oppose them. If you don't consider a fetus to be human I can understand how you could take that position. However if it isn't human, then what is it? What species is it? How do you determine when it becomes human? I would rather err on the side of considering it human and being wrong than not considering it a human and being wrong.
- Mar 17, 2010
- 4,872
- 1,225
- 766
- MBTI
- ????
- Enneagram
- 9w1
ha! what indeed. the whole premise of abortion being (potentially?) wrong rests on the idea that human beings are uniquely important.
That the universe evolved us so it could try and figure itself out. We are literally the children of the cosmos. Seems like a pretty proud heritage if you ask me.
For you, absolutely nothing(correct me if I'm wrong). So if I can kill a human that is literally a few days old because it's existence is an inconvenience, why can't I shoot the guy who brought 15 items into the 10 items or less lane at wal-mart.
But if human life does have inherent value, then that life should be protected till it can protect it'self.