Pro-choice vs Abortion

[Shantanu]

You do realize what you are saying: that women can be "taught" the "correct way to feel" about being raped...your "correct way to feel?" I am of the opinion that people have their own feelings, for their own reasons.

Let me turn what you've said around, so you can see in the mirror: your own beliefs have conditioned you not to have empathy for a woman who is raped and impregnated against her will. And you act accordingly.

Rape is to be strongly objected to: I have empathy for women raped. But a baby so conceived is innocent of any crime and deserves all the love and attention, not aborted or ostracised as the product of a rape that was inflicted upon a woman. Furthermore, one has to be careful in aborting because rapes need to be proven in law through a legal process. The pregnancy cannot wait for this to be legally resolved.

 

[dianaiad]

They don't always have a choice to avoid a biological function.

You don't have a choice to urinate or defecate. You don't have a choice whether to sweat or cry or eat or breathe.

You DO have a choice as to whether you engage in consensual sex.

Many, many, many people have managed to control those urges quite well, and live happy and fulfilled lives. As well, to be quite blunt, if you can't live without an orgasm, there are ways to achieve one without risking pregnancy.

 

[Shantanu]

How Many People Can Earth Support?

I take the view that God exists and will regulate human affairs in such a way that humanity progresses sustainably and when resources run dry, humanity will decline but medical science would continue to improve our lives so that we do not need as many children per family in the future across the planet.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Eugenics is practiced in India through the arranged marriage system in which the boy and the girl are matched for compatibility and abilities. It therefore works fine and has generated a massive population so is a very successful country.

Arranged marriages are practiced in several cultures. I do not know of the evidence of how these matches are made regarding heritable characters, I doubt that they are applied to that end with much thought or any at all. The criteria do not follow an improvement of the species and are often based on cultural considerations that are outside of any such criteria. How can compatibility of two individuals be determined in developing infants and children? How can useful traits be determined before they even express in the physical world? I think it is a numbers game and you are relying on the fact that no one has really looked at this as support of your position.

Given the resource limitations, I do not see how the development of a massive population is anything more than what flies do in dumping eggs on a carcass. Huge masses of offspring that decimate the carcass with a few surviving adults that must move out to seek more resources.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I take the view that God exists and will regulate human affairs in such a way that humanity progresses sustainably and when resources run dry, humanity will decline but medical science would continue to improve our lives so that we do not need as many children per family in the future across the planet.

I take the view that I don't see any God anywhere helping us out at all, so it's up to humans to regulate human affairs.

 

[columbus]

How Many People Can Earth Support?

Here's the problem I see with this sort of simplistic analysis, and why I think that the problem is vastly greater than the article describes. Human expectations are changing even faster than the population is growing.
For most of human history, the huge majority were doomed to a life of grinding poverty. They considered themselves lucky if they had food security and a roof over their dirt floor.
And no matter how much they envied the aristocracy in their palaces, they had no hope of changing the status quo. So, they didn't even aspire to a more comfortable life.

But that was then and this is now. Global communications has let the desperately poor billions know what they are missing and the unfair systems that keep them down. And weapons technology has become so much more sophisticated that the poor can fight for more equitable distribution.
And I believe that the poor will. And the rich will fight to keep their privilege. But instead of swords and spears, the weapons will be dirty bombs and cyber and suicide attacks.

For most of human history the poor were defenseless victims, but modern technology is giving them both information and teeth.

If everyone were willing to live like a subsistence farmer, the earth could support a lot more humans than it can support if everyone expects to live like a blue collar American. People like will go to war to protect their "right" to get paid 3× what some stupid Mexican does. How else can they afford their bass boat and air conditioning and cable TV?

Tom

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Rape is to be strongly objected to: I have empathy for women raped. But a baby so conceived is innocent of any crime and deserves all the love and attention, not aborted or ostracised as the product of a rape that was inflicted upon a woman. Furthermore, one has to be careful in aborting because rapes need to be proven in law through a legal process. The pregnancy cannot wait for this to be legally resolved.

So, I'll tell you what...let's try to give you a little "skin in the game," as they say. Let's not just make it "some woman." Let's make it yours. How about you try to imagine that it is your own wife who is, tragically, raped and impregnated. Will you accept this child as your own, to love as you would your own children, and provide it with the same inheritance rights to your property as you would your own....no differences? Are you that much in control of your own emotions that you could make the way this baby was conceived, and of whom, never be part of how you behave towards it?


I don't care what you answer here, or even if you do, but I would at least like you to think about your answer carefully, and as honestly as you are able to manage.

 

[Shantanu]

I take the view that I don't see any God anywhere helping us out at all, so it's up to humans to regulate human affairs.

It is for Brahman's Entertainment that these imponderables are designed: there is no need to worry oneself unnecessarily with regulating human affairs when there are 200 countries each regulating its own affairs. There is no common humanity that will listen to a body that will regulate the population of the Earth. Additionally, there are Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Christians, all imposing there regulations upon their flock. Brahman is watching and enjoying this entertainment.

 

[blü 2]

I don't know how to be any clearer:
Being forbidden to abort does not, by itself, entail being treated as breeding stock.

I don't see any important difference. in both cases the female is denied control of her own fertility, her own body by others who claim to be entitled to control it.

I hold that the compromise between the rights of the mother and of the fetus are dealt with reasonably in Roe v. Wade.

 

[Shantanu]

So, I'll tell you what...let's try to give you a little "skin in the game," as they say. Let's not just make it "some woman." Let's make it yours. How about you try to imagine that it is your own wife who is, tragically, raped and impregnated. Will you accept this child as your own, to love as you would your own children, and provide it with the same inheritance rights to your property as you would your own....no differences? Are you that much in control of your own emotions that you could make the way this baby was conceived, and of whom, never be part of how you behave towards it?


I don't care what you answer here, or even if you do, but I would at least like you to think about your answer carefully, and as honestly as you are able to manage.

If a child comes to me to be cared for and nurtured I will love and carry out my dharma regardless of how my wife was impregnated.

 

[Koldo]

I don't see any important difference. in both cases the female is denied control of her own fertility, her own body by others who claim to be entitled to control it.

I hold that the compromise between the rights of the mother and of the fetus are dealt with reasonably in Roe v. Wade.

In essence, you are saying:

1) People deny control of cows' own fertility.
1) People deny control of women's own fertility.
3) Therefore, people treat women like cows.

Let me show you a reductio ad absurdum to illustrate the point:

1) People give food to dogs.
2) People give food to Bob.
3) Therefore, people treat Bob like a dog.

Can you see the problem with your rationale now?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

If a child comes to me to be cared for and nurtured I will love and carry out my dharma regardless of how my wife was impregnated.

Okay, I believe you. But I am also very sure that there are many, many people who in the world who cannot feel the same way. That may be hard for you to understand, but I think we have to make some allowance for the very obvious fact that we are not all the same.

Look, the fact is, as I mentioned before, abortion in 1947 was hard to come by, and so here I am. But during my growing years, nobody wanted me. I was in something like 40 foster homes plus 3 Children's Aid institutions, and finally (to my great life) a private, boys boarding school run by Quakers. And at 17, I was set out on my own, with zero resources to turn to.

The point I'm trying to make with that statement is simply this: there are a very large number of religious people who vehemently oppose abortion, but have no interest in how many of those unwanted kids are treated or cared for AFTER they are born. And I consider that a very deep flaw in those who insist they be born, and then abandon interest after they are.

 

[Koldo]

So, I'll tell you what...let's try to give you a little "skin in the game," as they say. Let's not just make it "some woman." Let's make it yours. How about you try to imagine that it is your own wife who is, tragically, raped and impregnated. Will you accept this child as your own, to love as you would your own children, and provide it with the same inheritance rights to your property as you would your own....no differences? Are you that much in control of your own emotions that you could make the way this baby was conceived, and of whom, never be part of how you behave towards it?


I don't care what you answer here, or even if you do, but I would at least like you to think about your answer carefully, and as honestly as you are able to manage.

Excellent point. Even if one is opposed to abortion in rape cases it should be clear that by making it illegal to abort a fetus on these cases, one is certainly furthering the violence the women suffered. She is being forced to remember every single day that she was raped.

 

[blü 2]

In essence, you are saying:

1) People deny control of cows' own fertility.
1) People deny control of women's own fertility.
3) Therefore, people treat women like cows.

Let me show you a reductio ad absurdum to illustrate the point:

1) People give food to dogs.
2) People give food to Bob.
3) Therefore, people treat Bob like a dog.

Can you see the problem with your rationale now?

You're nearly there:

1) People feel free to take food from dogs.
2) People feel free to take food from Bob.
3) Therefore, people feel free to treat Bob like a dog.

 

[Shantanu]

Okay, I believe you. But I am also very sure that there are many, many people who in the world who cannot feel the same way. That may be hard for you to understand, but I think we have to make some allowance for the very obvious fact that we are not all the same.

Look, the fact is, as I mentioned before, abortion in 1947 was hard to come by, and so here I am. But during my growing years, nobody wanted me. I was in something like 40 foster homes plus 3 Children's Aid institutions, and finally (to my great life) a private, boys boarding school run by Quakers. And at 17, I was set out on my own, with zero resources to turn to.

The point I'm trying to make with that statement is simply this: there are a very large number of religious people who vehemently oppose abortion, but have no interest in how many of those unwanted kids are treated or cared for AFTER they are born. And I consider that a very deep flaw in those who insist they be born, and then abandon interest after they are.

Once people are educated on what priorities serve dharma (duties and righteous actions) they should be willing to change their ways. I do however take your point that the welfare of infants and children does not figure high in the priorities of religious teachings of established religions that focus on how to serve God or prepare for an afterlife. Serving God at the cost of dharma is not recommended by me. This would be wrong in my view even as someone who is a very strong theist.

 

[Shantanu]

Arranged marriages are practiced in several cultures. I do not know of the evidence of how these matches are made regarding heritable characters, I doubt that they are applied to that end with much thought or any at all. The criteria do not follow an improvement of the species and are often based on cultural considerations that are outside of any such criteria. How can compatibility of two individuals be determined in developing infants and children? How can useful traits be determined before they even express in the physical world? I think it is a numbers game and you are relying on the fact that no one has really looked at this as support of your position.

Given the resource limitations, I do not see how the development of a massive population is anything more than what flies do in dumping eggs on a carcass. Huge masses of offspring that decimate the carcass with a few surviving adults that must move out to seek more resources.

Hmmm.

 

[Koldo]

You're nearly there:

1) People feel free to take food from dogs.
2) People feel free to take food from Bob.
3) Therefore, people feel free to treat Bob like a dog.

Erm... I am afraid that is not really what you have said. Do I need to quote your post ?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

You never hear the anti-choice crowd lament that. You may have seen the post I left mentioning Gloria Allred and illegal abortion she had to abort her rapist's child, and nearly died of hemorrhage and infection. Nary a peep. It's acceptable carnage, and to the religious crowd, I suppose it's seen as a just punishment from God.



Yes. That's freedom. Freedom includes the ability to live life as one chooses. It's that pursuit of happiness thing.



Yes, but that's not relevant when considering an unwanted pregnancy. All that remains to be decided is who decides the fate of that pregnancy - the pregnant woman, or the church using the state to compel her to bring her unwanted pregnancy to term. I've decided in favor of the woman.



I agree with all of that.



There is no such line. Nor is one needed. Yes, the fetus is human, and if allowed to, is likely to become an adult human being. You seem to think that that alone makes aborting the human fetus immoral. I don't consider it a factor just as I don't consider the fact that the home invader that you might own a gun to shoot down is human is a factor in the decision of home invasion. You might say that that killing is justified because it is done in self-defense, and I would agree. The point remains that the humanity of the target was not a factor in the decision to end that life.



Agree again.

You seem to have different standards about what makes an act immoral. None of these factors matter. It's irrelevant that the fetus is human, or that abortion ends a human life, or that the fetus can potentially be an independent, free-living individual if born. Those aren't relevant to me, and simply mentioning them as if one should know that these facts make the act immoral is meaningless to those with different values from yours.

If you want to appeal to my conscience, you'll need to successfully argue that the procedure is cruel and causes suffering in the aborted fetus. Nothing else can sway me - not calling it murder, not calling it a baby, and not calling it human.



So is mine. Learn as much as others will teach you about safe sex and contraception, use these tools, and if an unwanted pregnancy results anyway, deliver a baby for adoption if you are unwilling to raise a child, or have an abortion if you are not. It's irrelevant who that offends. People that don't approve of abortion will not be forced to have abortions, and such people shouldn't have the ability to prevent them in others.



Yes, I consider the burgeoning world population and the threat of global warming imminent problems, and I have done my part in both arenas. I am the father of two children and have had surgery to prevent further conception, and my home is solar powered.



Feminism is not the insistence of women to be separate from men, but to not be dependent on them by virtue of having social and economic equality. Abortion rights help restore parity between the genders.



Isn't that an example of eugenics that is frequently rolled out to impugn Darwin or Sanger? I agree with your advice, but only for myself - not others. Let them do as they see fit.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

No one left me in charge to decide. It's just irresponsible to run around, get knocked up, and go for an abortion and repeat. It's more logical to use protection and it also helps avoid STD's.

I agree with the logic vis a vis STDs.

But. As others have pointed out? You cannot legislate morality. To do so? Would be immoral...

Anti-abortion laws are, without exception, a question of morality.

Choosing who's morality is a question of religion.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

When dealing with hot items, should one use protection to keep from getting burnt or not worry about getting burnt. It's the same logic. Use protection to avoid the outcome.

Except. No protection is 100%. Lots of women find themselves pregnant, even with protection...

... what then?