• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Abortion

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
What is your point?

So do you purchase the coffin?

If my culture had cultural norms for miscarriages and one would be to purchase a coffin, yes, I would. We are influenced by our culture so I can only answer by context. Yes, I would. Realistically (content), I don't think you can just buy a coffin. You can put anything you want in any box. That's not the point.
 

McBell

Unbound
What is your point?



If my culture had cultural norms for miscarriages and one would be to purchase a coffin, yes, I would. We are influenced by our culture so I can only answer by context. Yes, I would. Realistically (content), I don't think you can just buy a coffin. You can put anything you want in any box. That's not the point.
interesting.
So if the cultural norm is to treat abortions like miscarriages?
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
What is your point?



If my culture had cultural norms for miscarriages and one would be to purchase a coffin, yes, I would. We are influenced by our culture so I can only answer by context. Yes, I would. Realistically (content), I don't think you can just buy a coffin. You can put anything you want in any box. That's not the point.
It is the point. How and what we bury or cremate has significance to how we view life. The simple truth is that there is a distinction. A line drawn. And people who espouses every sperm is needed, are trying to blur that line when it fits their agenda.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
Plenty of our rights become meaningless if we're completely alone. This doesn't make them unimportant.

But if you're saying that reproductive care, including abortion, is analogous to other medical care, then I'd agree with you. It's hard for you to get the medicine or surgery you need if you're completely alone with no supplies, but again: this doesn't mean that the right isn't important.

But doesn't that requirement of "availability" - of turning to someone with more experience than you have - make it far less than a "right"? You have the "right" to liberty. The "right" to provide for yourself and seek sustenance, shelter and means to prolong your survival. I would even say you have the "right" to seek medical care. But you do not have a "right" to medical care. Your government may force the practitioners into granting it as a "right", but fundamentally this is no more than illusion - it would not necessarily stand up to adversity. Your "right" to seek sustenance for yourself, of course, does prevail, under any amount of adversity. I would argue that those fundamentals are the only true "rights".
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
Do you know of any modern human society that forces organ donation?

Once that fetus is born and grows into an adult human being that is intelligent, feels pain, and clearly expresses the desire to live, we don't force that person's mother to provide him with the use of her organs or tissues then. What's so special about a fetus that you think that it's entitled to the use of her organs and tissues while in the womb?

You argue that we should treat fetuses like people? Well, people aren't entitled to the use of another person's body without that person's continuous consent.

Even if we grant fetuses all the rights of people, we're still left in a pro-choice position. Arguing for any restriction on abortion can only be justified if fetuses have rights way beyond those of a typical person or pregnant women have rights way less than a typical person.

... less than a corpse, in fact, since even corpses have the right to bodily security: even if a person's organs would save multiple lives, if the person refused to donate them before death, we honour that wish after death.

I've never seen any anti-choice (and I use that term deliberately) advocate argue that fetuses are "super-beings" who are entitled to more rights than normal people, so what you and others who share your position are really arguing for is the devaluation of pregnant women to the point where you would refuse them rights we even grant to corpses.

"all the rights of people?"

C'mon. The rights any person has depends greatly upon law, and culture...and ability to exercise those rights. Nobody argues that a newborn infant has the same rights to self determination that a human adult has. I am arguing for just one right: the right to attempt to survive, and not be killed for the crime of succeeding at that survival.

I also argue that any pregnancy nowadays IS invited and permission for the fetus to live within the womb IS given when the man and woman involved have consensual sex, especially if the very, VERY effective contraceptive methods available to them are not used, or not used properly. That is, after all, the purpose of sex.

Indeed, everything about sex is about procreation and the protection of children, isn't it? ....and no, this isn't religion speaking. It's cold blooded 'science' talking.

Sex for us is fun. Unlike pretty much any other species, we have sex whenever....and women don't advertise their fertile times anywhere near as blatantly as other animals on the planet.

I have read the arguments that sex is for increasing closeness between partners, because it's fun, because it provides pleasure, because....and every single argument is about keeping the pair together. Why? Because human pregnancy causes problems for the woman. She's not quite as able to provide, physically, for herself. She NEEDS the male to stick around to help her out. So...sex is fun for the man. In order to GET sex, he sticks around so that she can have the babies and be more successful in raising them to an age at which they can provide for themselves, and human childhood is very long, compared to almost every other species around.

So, no matter what, sex is about kids. Making them, protecting them, keeping the parents together so that they will be saver and better provided for. Doesn't matter whether there are any kids actually included, that's what SCIENCE says sex was evolved for.

Now, of course, we can prevent unwanted pregnancy. Indeed, it's not that hard to prevent pregnancy. Use more than one contraceptive method, use them correctly, and the odds are extremely low that pregnancy will ensue.

So....if the couple is stupid or irresponsible or just incredibly unlucky (along the lines of getting eaten by a shark while being struck by lightning in a wading pool...in Kansas..), then a new human life is created, and installed in the system expressly designed to nurture it for its first nine months. How is it the fault of the FETUS that its parents 'goofed?" Since when is it a capital crime to be the victim of someone ELSE'S "oops?"

No, I'm all for 'choice.' I just think that choice needs to be made BEFORE one chooses to have sex.

(disclaimer, because I can see it coming....please note the use of 'consensual' and 'choose." Rape is neither one, and is a very different discussion)

There. end of rant.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
what "right" isn't?
My right to think, remember or keep my thoughts to myself. My right to attempt to continue my own sustenance, regardless my physical circumstance. There are certain things that can't be taken away from you, save by perhaps death. But if someone is going to go to the trouble of killing you to restrict your "rights", then I'd argue killing you was ultimately the goal in the first place.
 

McBell

Unbound
My right to think, remember or keep my thoughts to myself. My right to attempt to continue my own sustenance, regardless my physical circumstance. There are certain things that can't be taken away from you, save by perhaps death. But if someone is going to go to the trouble of killing you to restrict your "rights", then I'd argue killing you was ultimately the goal in the first place.
You have not shown that any of the "rights" you listed are not merely illusions.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
You have not shown that any of the "rights" you listed are not merely illusions.
I suppose that's true. Though my ability to think is real enough for me, and I daresay there isn't a person out there who can stop me outside of destroying my brain. So it is as close to a "right" as I can muster. Illusion or not, I intend to exercise my right to it. And isn't that really all that matters?
 

McBell

Unbound
I suppose that's true. Though my ability to think is real enough for me, and I daresay there isn't a person out there who can stop me outside of destroying my brain. So it is as close to a "right" as I can muster. Illusion or not, I intend to exercise my right to it. And isn't that really all that matters?
thinking is something you do.
Or do not do.
It isn't a right.
 

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
I am pro-choice - however I despise the term and consider it a stain on humanity that abortion is even a consideration.

I am pro-choice because of the crime statistics. 18 years post Roe vs. Wade and the United States crime stats display a shamefully obvious downturn. Fewer unwanted children, lower crime rates. Shameful really. Apparently people are dumb to an alarming extent.

And the reason I despise the term "pro-choice" is because it is only a "choice" for privileged beings of this modern society. If a woman were to find herself pregnant, alone on a deserted island, I'd like to see her make her "choice" then. Pretend we're post-apocalypse - no clinics, no doctors - a woman is pregnant - let's see her make her "choice". The term is foolish, presumptuous - semantically broken.

Women were making that 'choice' for thousands of years prior to clinics and doctors. There's no question that the 'choice' was far more life threatening prior to clinics and doctors, but it's always been available.
 

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
Are people dumb?

I mean really when I was a non Christian Science clearly showed me abortion was murder

A fetus whose biological functions are still dependent upon the biological functions of another entity is not an individual and therefor is not entitled to an individual's rights.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
thinking is something you do.
Or do not do.
It isn't a right.

Couldn't you substitute anything into that format? And then what remains that could even be considered a "right"? Some examples:
  • Sourcing food and water to sustain your life is something you do or do not do. It is not a right.
  • Speaking out freely is something you do or do not do. It is not a right.
  • Using your eyes, provided you have them and they are imbued with vision, is something you do or do not do. It is not a right.
  • Utilizing your own extremities, provided you have them, is something you do or do not do. It is not a right.
  • Seeking a good life, or happiness, or anything at all really, is something you do or do not do. It is not a right.
In the end, perhaps it is the definition of "right" that we perhaps disagree on? Here is one:

rights - that which is due to anyone by just claim, legal guarantees, moral principles

I believe I have a "just claim" to my own thoughts - perhaps you feel otherwise? My "just claim" to using my own eyes? No? To seeking food and water to survive? Or perhaps you feel a "right" is only something granted you by someone who could otherwise take said "right" away? For instance:
  • Having a fair trial is something you do or do not do. It is not a right.
Now that one has some issues from the get-go. Without the other participants upholding your "right" to a fair trial, I would agree, you don't even have it. It is not something you "do" or "do not do". It is something you are" provided" or are "not provided", by those societal entities who hold the prevailing control. And so, you have to have the "right" to begin with before you have a "fair trial" at all. Perhaps those types of things are the only things that you consider to be "rights"?
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
Women were making that 'choice' for thousands of years prior to clinics and doctors. There's no question that the 'choice' was far more life threatening prior to clinics and doctors, but it's always been available.

Of course. But my ultimate point is that simplifying it to a "choice" is a misnomer, of sorts. It makes it all sound so clean-cut, and does not represent it for what it is. It is the poster-child for euphemism. Don't get me wrong - euphemism has its place. But it is also very often used to hide things we are (many times rightfully so) ashamed of.
 

McBell

Unbound
Couldn't you substitute anything into that format? And then what remains that could even be considered a "right"? Some examples:
  • Sourcing food and water to sustain your life is something you do or do not do. It is not a right.
  • Speaking out freely is something you do or do not do. It is not a right.
  • Using your eyes, provided you have them and they are imbued with vision, is something you do or do not do. It is not a right.
  • Utilizing your own extremities, provided you have them, is something you do or do not do. It is not a right.
  • Seeking a good life, or happiness, or anything at all really, is something you do or do not do. It is not a right.
In the end, perhaps it is the definition of "right" that we perhaps disagree on? Here is one:

rights - that which is due to anyone by just claim, legal guarantees, moral principles

I believe I have a "just claim" to my own thoughts - perhaps you feel otherwise? My "just claim" to using my own eyes? No? To seeking food and water to survive? Or perhaps you feel a "right" is only something granted you by someone who could otherwise take said "right" away? For instance:
  • Having a fair trial is something you do or do not do. It is not a right.
Now that one has some issues from the get-go. Without the other participants upholding your "right" to a fair trial, I would agree, you don't even have it. It is not something you "do" or "do not do". It is something you are" provided" or are "not provided", by those societal entities who hold the prevailing control. And so, you have to have the "right" to begin with before you have a "fair trial" at all. Perhaps those types of things are the only things that you consider to be "rights"?
I asked you what "right" is not merely an illusion.
I asked because I do not know of one.

The whole "just claim" is an illusion in an attempt to justify your "right".
Since "rights" are an illusion...

By illusion I mean there is nothing backing it other than the agreement of others that it should be backed.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
I asked you what "right" is not merely an illusion.
I asked because I do not know of one.

The whole "just claim" is an illusion in an attempt to justify your "right".
Since "rights" are an illusion...

By illusion I mean there is nothing backing it other than the agreement of others that it should be backed.

Actually in the case of things like my own motor function, controlling my own thoughts, seeking out sustenance - I do not need the agreement of others that those things should be mine to do/control. The impetus lies with myself, objectively. I don't even need anyone else to be present on the Earth in order to exercise my dominion over those items.
 

McBell

Unbound
Actually in the case of things like my own motor function, controlling my own thoughts, seeking out sustenance - I do not need the agreement of others that those things should be mine to do/control. The impetus lies with myself, objectively. I don't even need anyone else to be present on the Earth in order to exercise my dominion over those items.
Then you just declared them to be something OTHER than "rights"...
Just like thinking is not a "right".
 

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
Of course. But my ultimate point is that simplifying it to a "choice" is a misnomer, of sorts. It makes it all sound so clean-cut, and does not represent it for what it is. It is the poster-child for euphemism. Don't get me wrong - euphemism has its place. But it is also very often used to hide things we are (many times rightfully so) ashamed of.

Actually the term pro-choice came about as a response to conservatives deciding to call themselves pro-life and wanting to paint liberals as pro-death in the process. The use of pro-choice wasn't intended to hide things to be ashamed of. It was simply an attempt to clarify that they are not pro-death, but rather support the right of a woman to make such a personal decision for themselves.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
Then you just declared them to be something OTHER than "rights"...
Just like thinking is not a "right".

Again, I have a feeling this is only a difference in what you define to be a "right". You seem to be building in the "societally/communally accepted" aspect, which I am not taking into account, by default. By the definition I posited, I believe that I have "just claim" over my thoughts. I have "just claim" over control of my extremities. Whether or not you consider "just claim" to be "illusion" is up to you - but it is not an objective position by any means.
 
Top