Abortion

[JRMcC]

So you are arguing with yourself in reply to the posts of others?

I don't know what you're talking about or trying to get at to be honest. Can you clarify?

 

[leibowde84]

There are a lot of religious arguments (and general political ones) against abortion. But I think that the argument, generally speaking, demonstrates the scientific illiteracy of the everyman.

So you're against abortion for whatever reason, but consider this argument from Neil DeGrasse Tyson:

"Most abortions are spontaneous and happen naturally within the human body. Most women who have such an abortion never know it because it happens within the first month. It is very, very common. So in fact the biggest abortionist, if god is responsible for what goes on in your body, is god."

Now when he says 'very common' what he means is 50-70%. That's 50-70% of all pregnancies end in a spontaneous abortion that you 1) can't control and 2) are never aware of.

So how is the anti-abortionist stance tenable given this dataset?

I assume that they are only against artificial abortions. I don't think they have any issue with naturally occurring abortions.

 

[SomeRandom]

I am firmly pro choice. As for the "morality" of it ehhhh. I come from a Hindu background, so my approach or the way I was taught to approach morality is more along the lines of the "Dharmic ideals/ideas" which may or may not be unfamiliar to people not involved in anything to do with the "eastern approach to things." *shrugs*

At least in my family's tradition there's no clear cut "you must not have an abortion because it is "bad" karma/adharmic" teachings of really any kind. (Of course there's varying degrees of acceptance or not within the "circle of Hinduism" as it were. But ehh, you get that.)
So, in my view, if a fetus puts too much stress on the mother financially, physically or mentally then yeah, I have no objection to an chosen abortion in such cases. So in essence, if someone is raped, too poor to afford a kid, too young to have a kid safely, the mother's life is threatened in any way, the fetus has some debilitating condition which will kill it etc etc are situations where I have no real problem with abortion even on a personal level. Maybe that makes me a filthy heathen? I don't know.

Oh and I'm including late term abortions just btw, which are normally done only in dire medical scenarios. Well I've never heard of anyone or any case where someone has had an elective late term abortion, anyway.

As for elective early term abortions, I probably wouldn't have an abortion outside of the situations I just listed, but I won't stop another woman from having one.

As to the OP, perhaps artificial abortions could be viewed as a human basically dictating between who lives and who dies. Therefore "playing God" which isn't seen in a great light by many people.

 

[Levite]

There are a lot of religious arguments (and general political ones) against abortion. But I think that the argument, generally speaking, demonstrates the scientific illiteracy of the everyman.

So you're against abortion for whatever reason, but consider this argument from Neil DeGrasse Tyson:

"Most abortions are spontaneous and happen naturally within the human body. Most women who have such an abortion never know it because it happens within the first month. It is very, very common. So in fact the biggest abortionist, if god is responsible for what goes on in your body, is god."

Now when he says 'very common' what he means is 50-70%. That's 50-70% of all pregnancies end in a spontaneous abortion that you 1) can't control and 2) are never aware of.

So how is the anti-abortionist stance tenable given this dataset?

I am fairly strongly pro-choice-- in fact, I wrote a rabbinic responsum clarifying the permissibility of abortion in Jewish Law-- but that Tyson quote annoys me. His hypothesis implies that God is directly and deliberately responsible for spontaneous abortions, and presumably by extension, everything else within people's bodies and elsewhere. Which, I understand, is a theological position that some fundamentalists have espoused. But it is crap theology: unsophisticated, medieval at best, and woefully heavy-handed.

What I find grating about anti-theists like Tyson, Hawking, Sagan, and their ilk (though I admire their scientific prowess greatly) is that their opposition is always framed against fundamentalist, literalist, rigid and archaic theologies. Granted, the fundamentalist extremists around us are very loud with their opinions, and often hold sway beyond their numbers in American society, and I am perfectly happy to oppose them vigorously. But not all religious people are fundamentalists and extremists, nor is all religious thought fundamentalist, literalist, and theologically heavy-handed.

In any case, I suppose I could imagine that an anti-abortionist could argue that spontaenous abortions and miscarriages are, by virtue of their natural origin, parts of the divine plan, whereas artificial abortion is the result of human choices altering nature. That still leaves about a thousand theological openings to oppose that argument, but it does technically answer Tyson's point. Not, I hasten to reiterate, that I myself wish to argue against abortion. But technically, an argument could be made.

 

[Mycroft]

archaic theologies.

You mean that such people don't hold to the conveniently altered views of modern religions to avoid outrage and criticism from all quarters. There is no archaic theology, it is what it is: either the Bible/Quran/Torahy are right, or they worthless. It's an all-in-all-out kind of thing, not something you can cherry pick the most convenient parts from and forget the rest.

 

[Levite]

You mean that such people don't hold to the conveniently altered views of modern religions to avoid outrage and criticism from all quarters. There is no archaic theology, it is what it is: either the Bible/Quran/Torahy are right, or they worthless. It's an all-in-all-out kind of thing, not something you can cherry pick the most convenient parts from and forget the rest.

Yes, thank you. That is exactly the kind of rigid, heavy-handed literalism I was referring to.

 

[roger1440]

There are a lot of religious arguments (and general political ones) against abortion. But I think that the argument, generally speaking, demonstrates the scientific illiteracy of the everyman.

So you're against abortion for whatever reason, but consider this argument from Neil DeGrasse Tyson:

"Most abortions are spontaneous and happen naturally within the human body. Most women who have such an abortion never know it because it happens within the first month. It is very, very common. So in fact the biggest abortionist, if god is responsible for what goes on in your body, is god."

Now when he says 'very common' what he means is 50-70%. That's 50-70% of all pregnancies end in a spontaneous abortion that you 1) can't control and 2) are never aware of.

So how is the anti-abortionist stance tenable given this dataset?

Death comes natural to all living creatures. If God is responsible for death, should I just walk over someone who was just hit by a car and continue on my way?

 

[McBell]

Death comes natural to all living creatures. If God is responsible for death, should I just walk over someone who was just hit by a car and continue on my way?

Do you believe that nothing happens that is not Gods will?
If so, does it really matter what you do or do not do?
I mean, whatever you do is Gods will, right?

 

[roger1440]

Do you believe that nothing happens that is not Gods will?
If so, does it really matter what you do or do not do?
I mean, whatever you do is Gods will, right?

We each have the responsibility to preserve the sanctity of human life, in or out of the womb.

 

[McBell]

We each have the responsibility to preserve the sanctity of human life, in or out of the womb.

Says who?
And why does it not apply to god?

 

[roger1440]

Says who?
And why does it not apply to god?

It's part of the deal with life itself.

 

[McBell]

It's part of the deal with life itself.

That is not an answer to either question.

At least...
Not on it's own.

 

[Maponos]

In Celtic mythology, I'm unaware of any mention of abortive practices but in Greek history (or mythology) a woman wasn't allowed to enter a temple because she'd had an abortion and it created a spiritual impurity within her. I'm okay with adopting this view because abortion is essentially a desecration of life and its natural processes. I don't believe all abortions are bad, but that's my spiritual opinion on it.

 

[Mycroft]

We each have the responsibility to preserve the sanctity of human life, in or out of the womb.

Who decided this? Everything that has lived is dead, and everything that's alive is going to die. Where does the sacred part come into it?

 

[Mycroft]

Yes, thank you. That is exactly the kind of rigid, heavy-handed literalism I was referring to.

Do you believe that all abortions are wrong?

 

[Smart_Guy]

I don't think such social cases should be "all" wrong. Necessity is the judge, I always say.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I really struggle with this issue. On the one hand I'm generally a liberal on these questions, but on the other hand I'm an adopted person and back then I would most likely have been terminated if abortion had been widely available, as it is now.

 

[JoStories]

It's part of the deal with life itself.

How so? Does that mean you get to decide what I can or cannot do with my own body? How about I decide you don't need some part of your body or that you have to carry a tumor around for 10 months? It is not up to you to decide what a woman can do with her reproductive rights. Its up to her.

 

[BSM1]

Hinduism has nothing on abortion (it was not practiced in history or mythology). We are governed by our present law and it is quite nice.

The Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act of India clearly states the conditions under which a pregnancy can be ended or aborted, the persons who are qualified to conduct the abortion and the place of implementation. Some of these qualifications are as follows:

• Women whose physical and/or mental health were endangered by the pregnancy,
• Women facing the birth of a potentially handicapped or malformed child,
• Rape,
• Pregnancies in unmarried girls under the age of eighteen with the consent of a guardian,
• Pregnancies in "lunatics" with the consent of a guardian,
• Pregnancies that are a result of failure in sterilization.

So what about the woman who likes to get drunk (like a guy), sleep around (like a guy), and gets pregnant (like a....oh, wait). Does she not get a choice?

 

[columbus]

Fetal humans don't conscript anything. They are human beings who are put in a dependent position by parents.
Tom​

Now that's an emotive and untrue statement.

In what way? I'll stand behind the science and rationality.
But you'll have to be a good deal more precise to have any meaning.
Tom

Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.

Everyone knows this. Not all sex has any chance of creating a new human being. Some pregnancies are doomed from the get go. But as an absolute statement this is not accurate. Only one kind of sex comes with the potential responsibility for another human individual, that is PV sex.

To suggest that a fetus has the right to conscript another human being because of its location or developmental stage is to grant it special rights that no one else has, and constitutes special pleading.

And now you're back to the special pleading based on the false premise that fetal human beings conscript parents. Pregnancy is a unique event and cherry picking the parts of a moral code to support the right to kill a dependent is the special pleading going on here. Under no other circumstances can one human choose something that puts another in a life or death situation and then just decide that they wish they hadn't chosen that and kill them.

That is the special pleading going on here.

Tom