Abortion

[Marisa]

When you come into someone's conversation, you are going to get confused.

I'm not justifying myself, I am giving answers to someone else whom I replied to on page 57.

Dude, I've been in this conversation from the beginning.

ETA: But if it helps you out, then let me rephrase: No one needs to justify their opinion of choice. They simply need to feel compelled to respect the right of others to form their own opinions.

 

[OurCreed]

Dude, I've been in this conversation from the beginning.

ETA: But if it helps you out, then let me rephrase: No one needs to justify their opinion of choice. They simply need to feel compelled to respect the right of others to form their own opinions.

I'm not disagreeing with you.

I just want you to know that what I have been talking about the whole time was in reply to columbus who was wondering why abortion is not liked by religious folks, and I gave two reasons for their justification. It has nothing to do with me.

 

[Marisa]

I'm not disagreeing with you.

I just want you to know that what I have been talking about the whole time was in reply to columbus who was wondering why abortion is not liked by religious folks, and I gave two reasons for their justification. It has nothing to do with me.

It's immaterial whether anyone agrees with anyone else or not, that's one of the whole points of this conversation. I rather abhor the notion that anyone has to supply a socially acceptable reason for exercising their rights, we all have them and that is simply that. I don't need to justify why I make the choices I do, and nobody has the privilege of telling me I can only make the choices they would make. Yet far too many people are tickled pink the judge the worth and value of another person based on whether that person's choices for their own body and life line up with what they would choose, or whether that choice flatters their religious belief. That's the problem with morality, and it's why it's damn near impossible to legislate it.

FWIW, I totally agree with Tom that this life is all we get. Where we part ways is when he goes on to say that knowing that, I am rightly forced to continue a pregnancy I don't want to continue, despite the fact that this life is the only one I'll have and I am the one who being forced into doing something I don't want to do is going to affect. I suppose it just goes to show that no one really likes being told which rights they can exercise and under what conditions, most especially in a society with such a high premium on personal freedoms.

 

[OurCreed]

It's immaterial whether anyone agrees with anyone else or not, that's one of the whole points of this conversation. I rather abhor the notion that anyone has to supply a socially acceptable reason for exercising their rights, we all have them and that is simply that. I don't need to justify why I make the choices I do, and nobody has the privilege of telling me I can only make the choices they would make. Yet far too many people are tickled pink the judge the worth and value of another person based on whether that person's choices for their own body and life line up with what they would choose, or whether that choice flatters their religious belief. That's the problem with morality, and it's why it's damn near impossible to legislate it.

FWIW, I totally agree with Tom that this life is all we get. Where we part ways is when he goes on to say that knowing that, I am rightly forced to continue a pregnancy I don't want to continue, despite the fact that this life is the only one I'll have and I am the one who being forced into doing something I don't want to do is going to affect. I suppose it just goes to show that no one really likes being told which rights they can exercise and under what conditions, most especially in a society with such a high premium on personal freedoms.

As long as we live in this world, there is no such thing as true freedom. Our lives, our choices, our rights, they all have boundaries.

 

[Marisa]

As long as we live in this world, there is no such thing as true freedom. Our lives, our choices, our rights, they all have boundaries.

I agree, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive for perfection while understanding that we won't ever achieve it.

 

[McBell]

To stop a beating heart is murder.

Wrong.
Try looking up the definition of "murder".

 

[McBell]

Please refer yourself to the concept of bodily autonomy we've been over already. NO ONE has the right to force another human being to donate any organ or bodily fluid to further their own life. This is NOT killing. Period.

I am a bit confused.
What exactly are you saying is not killing?

 

[McBell]

Who's law? That's the problem for the faithful to God: it would be considered murder by God's standards, but not by human standards. People aren't perfect, I get that, but it's no excuse for not trying.

The law of the land.

Mainly because until such time as god shows up to enforce his law, his law does not outrank the law of the land.

 

[McBell]

You can care less all you want, a large portion of the American population cares. They vote, too. Ooooh.

fat lot of good it did them.
Roe Vs Wade.
the overturning of same sex marriage bans.

Care to try again?

 

[McBell]

So you're against organ donors... or? Because those who get organs, cease to be people?

Shamefully weak criteria.

Really?
If this is the best you got you should stop now before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.

 

[Marisa]

I am a bit confused.
What exactly are you saying is not killing?

There was malice implied in the original comment.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

As long as we live in this world, there is no such thing as true freedom. Our lives, our choices, our rights, they all have boundaries.

Sure. I'd like the same rights and boundaries regardless of gender, please. If men do not have to be concerned about outside agencies telling them that their reproductive health, their own hormones, their own testicles, their own prostate glands, their own penises, should be always taken into consideration when pro-creating and "protecting the sanctity of life"...then women should be free from the same concerns regarding our reproductive health.

Otherwise, please consider the monstrous idea of males having compulsory vasectomies upon the age of puberty, and then have their vasectomies reversed once they can legitmately prove they can financially support offspring until the age of adulthood. These outside agencies will also have the freedom to determine if a man must submit his reproductive system to vasectomies at any time he is considered too unethical or immoral in his sexual decisions for his own life.

Now, does this sound horrid, outrageous, unrealistic, and unapplicable? Let that sink in for a minute in regards to the kind of moralizing and control outside agencies prefer to have over female reproductive systems....and consider that our society is accustomed to this horrid kind of moralization and control.

 

[idea]

It doesn't require another human's organs (the uterus is an organ) to live.

Please refer yourself to the concept of bodily autonomy we've been over already. NO ONE has the right to force another human being to donate any organ or bodily fluid to further their own life...

My Aunt had diabetes, in her case, the mother was relying on the organs of her unborn child to live (my cousin produced insulin for her while she was pregnant)... so in her case, the mom was the dependent, not the child... Does this mean the child should have the right to kill his dependent mother? because the mother had no right to force her child to donate their bodily fluids?

That's not true. A "murder" is an unjustified or illegal killing. There are many occasions of justified killing that cannot be considered "murder".

So you agree that Abortion does fall under the umbrella of "killing"...

And that is a complete lie. Murder is a legal term referring to killing that is not allowed or sanctioned by law. Abortion is legal, hence it cannot be murder. You're using the term for it's emotional effect, you apparently don't care about the reality of the thing.

It used to be legal to kill slaves... Just because something is legal, does not mean it is not murder.

 

[Marisa]

My Aunt had diabetes, in her case, the mother was relying on the organs of her unborn child to live (my cousin produced insulin for her while she was pregnant)... so in her case, the mom was the dependent, not the child... Does this mean the child should have the right to kill his dependent mother? because the mother had no right to force her child to donate their bodily fluids?

Look, I'd appreciate if you stopped trying to force me to say something that isn't going to happen. I'm never going to try to tell you that your opinion about a medical procedure is right or wrong. What I am going to argue is that it's not intellectually honest to say you are pro-rights, and then come out against choice.

 

[leibowde84]

My Aunt had diabetes, in her case, the mother was relying on the organs of her unborn child to live (my cousin produced insulin for her while she was pregnant)... so in her case, the mom was the dependent, not the child... Does this mean the child should have the right to kill his dependent mother? because the mother had no right to force her child to donate their bodily fluids?




So you agree that Abortion does fall under the umbrella of "killing"...



It used to be legal to kill slaves... Just because something is legal, does not mean it is not murder.

I would say that it depends on your definition of "killing", as, at least legally, a fetus has not achieved "personhood". That being said, I would agree that later term abortions are killing of at least some kind. But, it is legally sanctioned and justifiable (imho), so it can't be considered "murder".

 

[viole]

There is however, another theory amongst Abrahamic religionists.

You see, the soul is something that is developed over time. We can't say for sure when the soul actually becomes part of the creature.

So, your opposition to abortion is because we do not know when the soul develops and therefore it is a crime to prevent a soulless body from acquiring a soul?

When a baby is in the womb, it is not only physically developing, but spiritually developing, and the soul that is breathed into the physical object (the baby) becomes living, as God breathes His power of life giving into the baby. Without the soul, there is no life, just a lump of mass.

This entails logically that either things like pigs do not have life or they have a soul.

So abortion would basically be preventing this universal law of the soul entering into the physical body and developing alongside the physical development of the baby child.

Universal law?

Ciao

- viole

 

[idea]

Look, I'd appreciate if you stopped trying to force me to say something that isn't going to happen. I'm never going to try to tell you that your opinion about a medical procedure is right or wrong. What I am going to argue is that it's not intellectually honest to say you are pro-rights, and then come out against choice.

pro-rights? I am pro-life. I think life is an incredible thing.

pro-choice? There are a lot of things in life we have no choice over - we cannot choose to live forever, we cannot choose to change the weather, we cannot choose the consequences of our actions. To pretend that we can choose in all matters is unrealistic. Facing up to the consequences of our actions can be a hard thing to do, but I think honesty is the best policy. Pretending a baby does not have a heartbeat, or brainwaves, or ears that hear and nerves that feel pain is not honest.

I would say that it depends on your definition of "killing", as, at least legally, a fetus has not achieved "personhood". That being said, I would agree that later term abortions are killing of at least some kind. But, it is legally sanctioned and justifiable (imho), so it can't be considered "murder".

How do you define when personhood starts? I'm not one to define it at conception, I think it happens when a spirit enters a body, and I'm not sure when exactly that happens?

In any event, those who I know who had abortions when they were young and naive all deeply regret it now - to the point of one of my friends actually experiencing PTSD and going to continued counseling for it. ... I've never had anyone tell me "I wish I never gave birth, I hate my kids, my sacrifices for them were not worth it, if I could do it again, I would have never had kids" .... The people at my grandmother's retirement home - the ones who are happy? The happy ones are the ones who have their kids coming by to visit them. Talk to all the old people, and they will tell you the most important thing in their life was their family (regardless of how that family came about.)

 

[Marisa]

pro-rights? I am pro-life. I think life is an incredible thing.

The phrase "pro life" is more than your opinion on a specific medical procedure. There's no need to get into it now, suffice to say that in many ways I am more "pro life" supporting choice than many people who oppose choice are.

pro-choice? There are a lot of things in life we have no choice over - we cannot choose to live forever, we cannot choose to change the weather, we cannot choose the consequences of our actions. To pretend that we can choose in all matters is unrealistic. Facing up to the consequences of our actions can be a hard thing to do, but I think honesty is the best policy. Pretending a baby does not have a heartbeat, or brainwaves, or ears that hear and nerves that feel pain is not honest.

This would be the crux of your objection to choice. The bolded implies that woman's purpose is to breed. And, you may not be aware, but you've just called the fetus a "consequence" of a woman's actions. Are you sure that's the message you want to be sending?

How do you define when personhood starts?

I don't. It's immaterial to my argument.

I'm not one to define it at conception, I think it happens when a spirit enters a body, and I'm not sure when exactly that happens?

You will need to provide proof of a "spirit" if you wish me to agree with you.

In any event, those who I know who had abortions when they were young and naive all deeply regret it now

Be very careful here, there are actually statistics available which speak to where you are headed. I've referenced them already in this conversation, but there is NO proven link between abortion and mental health, or between abortion and cancer.

- to the point of one of my friends actually experiencing PTSD and going to continued counseling for it. ... I've never had anyone tell me "I wish I never gave birth, I hate my kids, my sacrifices for them were not worth it, if I could do it again, I would have never had kids" .... The people at my grandmother's retirement home - the ones who are happy? The happy ones are the ones who have their kids coming by to visit them. Talk to all the old people, and they will tell you the most important thing in their life was their family (regardless of how that family came about.)

Ho hum. Anecdotal evidence is unconvincing and almost never founded upon facts. Which seems to be the reason it's offered. Also, the best way to get me to shut down my emotions and remain purely logical is to attempt to manipulate me with them. I've not disrespected you in such a devious manner, and I would appreciate if you don't disrespect me.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Please refer yourself to the concept of bodily autonomy we've been over already. NO ONE has the right to force another human being to donate any organ or bodily fluid to further their own life. This is NOT killing. Period.

A fetus has different genetic makeup than the mother and is not defined, legally, as an organ or bodily fluid, but as something different. Nor does it cost you an organ or bodily fluid to have a child (it costs things like weight gain, more spending on food and lack of sleep). That's why moms and dads are called parents. "Fluid donor" and "egg donor" have different weights of meaning. We all need to learn this, obey this.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I understand that people believe this, but it is still irrational.
As a non-theist I believe that this life is all we get. So killing a human being is destroying whatever life that they might have had. And that isn't even my main reason for opposing elective abortion.

On the other hand, most abrahamic religionists believe that each human being is eternal and death is a transition. So whether a fetus dies of natural causes or artificial ones, the result is the same. That is usually referred to as Heaven. And that happens with no risk of a less happy ending to their particular story, because they die utterly innocent.

So while I realise that abortion is sometimes considered a sin I see no rational explanation for the assertion. Since the Bible is extremely unclear on the subject I assume it was made up later.

Tom

The Bible IMHO is hardly unclear on reaping what one sows. There are not many wonderful, enabling, freeing benefits to abortion other than immediate relief of the pregnancy "problem". It's not simple, elective surgery. There is fallout, emotional and otherwise. The Bible is clear that (usually) doing good or bad things reaps rewards or problems, and over the foreseeable if not the immediate future. Please understand this.