Your view on abortion. Atheist welcome.

[Comicaze247]

I'm really not sure if I should continue reading this thread or not. While I am entertained by it, I also end up with a headache afterward because of all the forehead smacking. I suppose it's a guilty pleasure kind of thing. Like watching reality TV. But anyway.

I think the point that some of the pro-life people here are missing is that not all abortions are done out of "inconvenience." Hell, the only situation I'd think of where a bun in the oven would be considered an "inconvenience" is if a hooker got knocked up. There are other scenarios, you know.

What about rape victims? Sure, life is sacred, but who would want to carry the seed of the person who violated them?

What about daughters of religious fanatics/ultra conservatives? Growing up around a lot of Hispanics (who are mainly Catholic), I knew quite a few girls who, if their parents ever found out they were having sex or, heaven forbid, pregnant, they would be beaten or disowned. In such households, it's likely a common occurrence already, I never pressed the issue. So would you want to face that? Would you want your child to be born into such an environment?

What about women who are physically incapable of carrying a child? Some women have problems where their bodies could never support a child. They could have too narrow a birth canal, or their body is still too underdeveloped (young pregnancies). Is it still wrong for these women to get an abortion if carrying a baby would kill both the mother and the potential child?

What about knowing you'd never be able to support a child and also not wanting YOUR offspring to go through the foster care system? Sure, there's adoption, but not all kids get adopted. Then there's also the chance of changing your mind about adoption at the last minute. When a mother gives birth, a bond forms, even if she was planning on giving the baby up. She could change her mind then. But if her reasons were real, meaning that she CAN'T take care of the child, Child Protective Services would take the child away and put them into the foster care system (from my understanding).

So would abortion be wrong for these women too?

 

[Doodlebug02]

I think I have changed my view on abortion. I now consider myself to be pro-life. I am pro-life now after reading some stuff on Abortion Facts - Information on abortion you can use.

 

[McBell]

Are you saying that my story is not valid because I said might?

I never even hinted towards the validity of your story.
I merely said that the key point of your story is the word might.
I am not a big fan of Pascals Wager.

I know a woman who said she was considering an abortion because there was a 50-50 chance that this baby might have the same disease his sister was born with but Thank God she didn't because he turned out to be healthy and the only donor match in her family. (They had two older children as well)

Relevance?
I mean other than to support your Pascals Wager.

 

[Falvlun]

Okay, and this is just hypothetical: What if you decide to have an abortion early on and then later you become pregnant and decide to keep the baby. The second child is born with no complications and lives to the age of about five when it's discovered that there is a life debiliating illness which requires a bone marrow transplant. Since the child has no siblings (the baby you aborted might have been a match) she undergoes a non-donor match and it doesn't take. She undergoes the procedure again and it still doesn't take. Your second child dies and all because you didn't want to give birth to your first.

So, in other words, we should just keep on cranking out babies, because at some point in time one of them might have a disease and the other one might be the donor? Please tell me you see the problem with this.

Also, you might want to read My Sister's Keeper, by Jodie Picoult. It might open your eyes to the rather murky waters of using one child to keep another of your children alive.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Are you saying that my story is not valid because I said might? I know a woman who said she was considering an abortion because there was a 50-50 chance that this baby might have the same disease his sister was born with but Thank God she didn't because he turned out to be healthy and the only donor match in her family. (They had two older children as well)

Two thoughts occur to me when I read this:

- this is an argument against small families by any means, not just abortion. If the woman had not gotten pregnant that second time (by abstaining from sex, for example), then that second child wouldn't have been there either. Was it your intention to imply that it's somehow morally wrong to not have multiple children?

- it seems like you're implying that the value of the second child comes out of being a sort of repository of spare parts for the first child. I thought that the "pro-life" movement was supposed to be about valuing life.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Okay, and this is just hypothetical: What if you decide to have an abortion early on and then later you become pregnant and decide to keep the baby. The second child is born with no complications and lives to the age of about five when it's discovered that there is a life debiliating illness which requires a bone marrow transplant. Since the child has no siblings (the baby you aborted might have been a match) she undergoes a non-donor match and it doesn't take. She undergoes the procedure again and it still doesn't take. Your second child dies and all because you didn't want to give birth to your first.

Another hypothetical!

You meet a guy in a bar and hit it off. He wants to take you back to his place; you say no (because you don't want to get pregnant, among other reasons), but give him your number. A few days later he calls, you go out on a date, then another, and eventually become a steady couple, but you wait to have sex until marriage. After two years, you do get married; you quickly get pregnant and have your first child. When that child is six months old, you find out she needs a bone marrow transplant. She doesn't have any siblings yet, and they can't find a matching donor. Your first child dies and all because you didn't want to have unprotected sex with a guy you just met in a bar.

Does that hypothetical scenario work? If not, then why does yours?

 

[Storm]

Okay, and this is just hypothetical: What if you decide to have an abortion early on and then later you become pregnant and decide to keep the baby. The second child is born with no complications and lives to the age of about five when it's discovered that there is a life debiliating illness which requires a bone marrow transplant. Since the child has no siblings (the baby you aborted might have been a match) she undergoes a non-donor match and it doesn't take. She undergoes the procedure again and it still doesn't take. Your second child dies and all because you didn't want to give birth to your first.

So we should have unwanted children because of the ridiculously slim chance that we might need to harvest their organs? What a blood-chilling argument. Horrific, but not in the way I think you were going for.

 

[pray4me]

So we should have unwanted children because of the ridiculously slim chance that we might need to harvest their organs? What a blood-chilling argument. Horrific, but not in the way I think you were going for.

Bone marrow is not an organ anyway, it's something that makes blood and the donor will not be harmed other than a slight discomfort after the proceedure. My point of the story was that we do not know what the future may hold for us and it is not our place to take a life, any life. For all we know that life may save another or many others. That child could grow up to find the cure to the common cold or many other things. My argument was not against small families it was against destroying a life that had already begun to form. You do not know what that life may be capable of, you do not know what good that child may do.

If your argument for abortion says there are too many people in the world then you should be against fertility treatments too. Everybody should adopt existing children instead of trying to have their own, this would greatly decrease the population. If your argument for abortion says the mother might die if she has the child then all women who have this problem should have their tubes tied so they will not conceive in the first place. Why should an innocent child die because it's parents didn't think about the possibility that they might get pregnant? As for the girl who gets an abortion because her parents might beat her if they find out she's pregnant, what do you think they'll do to her if they find out she had an abortion?

 

[Storm]

Bone marrow is not an organ anyway,

You're splitting hairs.

My point of the story was that we do not know what the future may hold for us and it is not our place to take a life, any life. For all we know that life may save another or many others. That child could grow up to find the cure to the common cold or many other things.

Yes, I know the argument. What I'm trying to tell you is that your presentation utterly failed.

My argument was not against small families it was against destroying a life that had already begun to form.

Mestemia was pointing out another way in which your choice of argument was a failure.

You do not know what that life may be capable of, you do not know what good that child may do.

Or what evil. Would it be acceptable to abort the next Hitler?

If your argument for abortion says there are too many people in the world then you should be against fertility treatments too.

That's not my argument.

In fact I don't think it's anyone's argument. It's a rebuttal to certain anti-choice arguments.

And I'm still against fertility treatments. EDIT: However, being pro-choice, I would not attempt to force others to obey my moral code via legislation. Some things are private.

If your argument for abortion says the mother might die if she has the child then all women who have this problem should have their tubes tied so they will not conceive in the first place.

Wow, that was heartless. Maybe she can't afford it. Maybe she just doesn't want major surgery. Maybe the condition was unforeseen.

Why should an innocent child die because it's parents didn't think about the possibility that they might get pregnant?

Why should the woman die?

As for the girl who gets an abortion because her parents might beat her if they find out she's pregnant, what do you think they'll do to her if they find out she had an abortion?

An abortion is easier hidden than a child.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Bone marrow is not an organ anyway, it's something that makes blood and the donor will not be harmed other than a slight discomfort after the proceedure.

Ah... so having kids for their organs is bad, but having kids for their bone marrow is good. Gotcha. Call me old-fashioned, but thought that love was supposed to be involved in the motivation for raising a family somehow. :sarcastic

My point of the story was that we do not know what the future may hold for us and it is not our place to take a life, any life. For all we know that life may save another or many others. That child could grow up to find the cure to the common cold or many other things. My argument was not against small families it was against destroying a life that had already begun to form.

It may not have been your intent to argue against small families, but your argument applies equally to them.

BTW: there's still a question on the floor. Do you think that it's a good idea for women to have unprotected sex with guys they just met, or are you going to show how the logic in our two hypothetical scenarios is different?

You do not know what that life may be capable of, you do not know what good that child may do.

Indeed, which makes me wonder how you can take into account one set of shocking possibilities (i.e. the whole "your first kid will need the second kid's bone marrow" argument) but not others (e.g. "your second kid will accidentally suffocate your first kid and herself while playing with an abandoned refrigerator") and not more mundane and likely possibilities (e.g. "your time and money will be divided between two kids instead of one and the first kid will end up somewhat disadvantaged because of the second").

If your argument for abortion says there are too many people in the world then you should be against fertility treatments too.

Likewise, if your argument against abortion says that there aren't enough people in the world, then you should be against anything that results in fewer pregnancies, and therefore fewer births.

Why should an innocent child die because it's parents didn't think about the possibility that they might get pregnant?

Why should a girl suffer because someone has decided that the fetus she's carrying is a child?

 

[Magic Man]

No my point is that the system is messed up.
1.) they can't help but be bias but they are human. As much as we try to block out what we know we have to do, we have what we want to do stuck in our heads
I think to block out this bias we need an even number of people who feel each way on each issue. But this is totally different from the thread obviously..

My point, though, is that the law does not say what is "right" and "wrong."

Sure they have biases. The point is that they don't let those biases make their decisions for them. For instance, I hate the Pittsburgh Steelers, but I can say that they played a very good Super Bowl because I can put my bias against them aside when I need to. Those 9 people can put their biases aside when they need to, which is why they're where they are.

 

[leahrachelle]

Or - and bear with me because this is a wacky idea - instead of two political camps, you put in nine people who will do their best to faithfully interpret the law.

And so why is their so much controversy over whether there are democrats or republicans on the Supreme Court if they have no bias towards each issue at all? They do, and they wouldn't be human if they didn't. The thing is 1.) you cannot appeal the Supreme Court's decision so they can truly do whatever they want 2.) the president does not pick them on the fact that they will not be bias, they pick them so that they WILL. The president WANTS judges that will side with him ... hmmm
Also, democrats and republicans think differently, so technically they will determine the law in a different way. So yes, it absolutely does matter that there are equal numbers of both parties.

 

[leahrachelle]

Believe it or not, there is more than a single political issue in this country.

Yes, I get that..

 

[leahrachelle]

Okay, and this is just hypothetical: What if you decide to have an abortion early on and then later you become pregnant and decide to keep the baby. The second child is born with no complications and lives to the age of about five when it's discovered that there is a life debiliating illness which requires a bone marrow transplant. Since the child has no siblings (the baby you aborted might have been a match) she undergoes a non-donor match and it doesn't take. She undergoes the procedure again and it still doesn't take. Your second child dies and all because you didn't want to give birth to your first.

I like the example, but I doubt it will poke at any feelings in them..

 

[leahrachelle]

I do not believe that the potential child gets its soul until it breathes its first breath of air.

You mean on its own?

 

[leahrachelle]

I'm really not sure if I should continue reading this thread or not. While I am entertained by it, I also end up with a headache afterward because of all the forehead smacking. I suppose it's a guilty pleasure kind of thing. Like watching reality TV. But anyway.

I think the point that some of the pro-life people here are missing is that not all abortions are done out of "inconvenience." Hell, the only situation I'd think of where a bun in the oven would be considered an "inconvenience" is if a hooker got knocked up. There are other scenarios, you know.

What about rape victims? Sure, life is sacred, but who would want to carry the seed of the person who violated them?

What about daughters of religious fanatics/ultra conservatives? Growing up around a lot of Hispanics (who are mainly Catholic), I knew quite a few girls who, if their parents ever found out they were having sex or, heaven forbid, pregnant, they would be beaten or disowned. In such households, it's likely a common occurrence already, I never pressed the issue. So would you want to face that? Would you want your child to be born into such an environment?

What about women who are physically incapable of carrying a child? Some women have problems where their bodies could never support a child. They could have too narrow a birth canal, or their body is still too underdeveloped (young pregnancies). Is it still wrong for these women to get an abortion if carrying a baby would kill both the mother and the potential child?

What about knowing you'd never be able to support a child and also not wanting YOUR offspring to go through the foster care system? Sure, there's adoption, but not all kids get adopted. Then there's also the chance of changing your mind about adoption at the last minute. When a mother gives birth, a bond forms, even if she was planning on giving the baby up. She could change her mind then. But if her reasons were real, meaning that she CAN'T take care of the child, Child Protective Services would take the child away and put them into the foster care system (from my understanding).

So would abortion be wrong for these women too?

Yes.
You can keep trying to challenge me with situations that it would be okay with.
You won't find one that I agree with, I assure you.

 

[leahrachelle]

Sure they have biases. The point is that they don't let those biases make their decisions for them. For instance, I hate the Pittsburgh Steelers, but I can say that they played a very good Super Bowl because I can put my bias against them aside when I need to. Those 9 people can put their biases aside when they need to, which is why they're where they are.

Says you?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And so why is their so much controversy over whether there are democrats or republicans on the Supreme Court if they have no bias towards each issue at all? They do, and they wouldn't be human if they didn't.

The fact that there's been a recent trend toward stacking the Supreme Court with people chosen for their political position instead of their judicial ability doesn't mean that this is an ideal situation.

The thing is 1.) you cannot appeal the Supreme Court's decision so they can truly do whatever they want

The Supreme Court's decisions can't be overturned by a higher court, but they can be nullified by legislators by changing the law.

2.) the president does not pick them on the fact that they will not be bias, they pick them so that they WILL. The president WANTS judges that will side with him ... hmmm

The most recently departed president did do that, but I think the general trend through history has been to elect judges who are chosen for their ability to do their job well.

Also, democrats and republicans think differently, so technically they will determine the law in a different way. So yes, it absolutely does matter that there are equal numbers of both parties.

I don't think they think as differently as you think. (record to me for highest proportion of a sentence being made up by the word "think"! )

Let me put it this way: say you're on a hockey team. You and the other team get to choose who you want as your referees (you get 2) and linesmen (you get 2 as well):

Option 1: Two fans for each team randomly chosen from the stands. They'll each consistently call in favour of the team they root for.

Option 2: Four professionals who interpret the rules to the best of their abilities, in such a way that you wouldn't be able to tell which team they like best.

Are you really saying that option 1 is better than option 2? As a player, would you really prefer that?

Or, to put it yet another way,I work in a quasi-judicial role myself sometimes: I'm a race marshal. I may have drivers I like and drivers I dislike, but if I see a driver commit some infraction on the track, I'll report it to race control just as quickly and consistently regardless of whether it's a driver I like, dislike, or am indifferent toward who committed it. I would like to think that people who have made a career out of making judgements would be at least as capable of exercising personal detachment as I am.

 

[DallasApple]

Okay, and this is just hypothetical: What if you decide to have an abortion early on and then later you become pregnant and decide to keep the baby. The second child is born with no complications and lives to the age of about five when it's discovered that there is a life debiliating illness which requires a bone marrow transplant. Since the child has no siblings (the baby you aborted might have been a match) she undergoes a non-donor match and it doesn't take. She undergoes the procedure again and it still doesn't take. Your second child dies and all because you didn't want to give birth to your first.

I have to say..this is one of the most bizzarre "anti-abortion " stances I have heard.I mean serioulsly..It would seem that if you use this "hypothetical"..everyone should have at least TWO children in case one needed bone marrow in the future..

GOD help me!

Love

Dallas

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I like the example, but I doubt it will poke at any feelings in them..

It did in me. The idea of treating a child like a bin of spare parts created immediate feelings of revulsion.