Abortion....why?

[ToxicOranges]

I'm pro-choice, because I would rather a baby was aborted if:

1) It would be born with a crippling mental / physical disorder that would ensure it had a short, shitty, painful life, followed by early death.
2) The mother was poor and could not afford to keep the baby, ensuring that the baby has a shit childhood, and if it's a girl, grows up to make the same stupid decisions it's mother did and have a child at 17.
3) Having the baby would cause the mother to be severly metnally / physcially hurt or disabled. No life of an unborn foetus is worth more than an actual living breathing human being, who has already made countless friendships and her loss would be tangible.

 

[Rule Britannia]

In my opinion (pro abortion) it is murder, but it's a fetus, it hasn't processed thoughts, it hasn't gained memories it doesn't know anything you're killing something but it doesn't matter because it doesn't have emotions, state of mind or anything like that. It won't know that it died, I doubt any of you (pro or con abortion) remember what you did even at the age of 1, because I certainly don't :S

That's my opinion.

 

[chadachada123]

How am I excluding that?

snip

IMO the exceptions are in cases of rape and if the woman's life is threatened. But aside from that, if you have sex you've got to accept the fact (especially if you take no measures to prevent it) that you could get pregnant and you have to give that person a chance to live once they've been created. I also find the argument on this topic that women should be able to do what they like with their bodies pretty strange, since the foetus's body isn't their's.
But I had a friend who had an abortion and I didn't try to stop her or force my views on her. Her mind was screwed up enough.

Now hold up, why should rape be an exception?

If I'm robbed, that doesn't mean that I get to rob someone else just to make me feel better. If you already think that a fetus counts as a person, then how can "murdering" (in your own words) them be okay just because a crime was committed to the female?

 

[chadachada123]

To answer another implied question, I would absolutely have preferred to have never been born than to have been born to a) shitty parents b) parents that didn't want me or c) a household that couldn't AFFORD to have me.

You can't make that decision for others though.

But you want people to make that decision for me? You think it's okay to FORCE someone into a tortured existence before they've even had a thought before?

 

[Master_of_Oldskool]

I'd like to point out that while it is a mostly Christian initiative, it's by no means exclusively Christian. Case in point myself, as I am very much an atheist but still really hate the idea of abortion. That "bunch of uncoordinated cells" is a child as far as I'm concerned, and the only circumstances I'd ever want to see a child get killed are the same circumstances in which I'd want to see an adult get killed: if they had a terminal illness that would take their lives slowly and painfully.

That said, I see no point in getting preachy about it. Too many people are already too comfortable with the idea that a fetus isn't a child for any amount of bitching on my part to make a difference. All I can do is wish that they wouldn't and try to keep out of it as much as possible.

 

[Grimbold]

I am not a religious person and I think abortion is a necessary evil when it comes to health reasons or when it is a result of rape.
People who get pregnant or impregnate because they are too lazy to use a condom and then decide to abort on the other hand deserve a hard slap in the face. The problem is just that this is the reason for the vast majority of abortions.
If one doesn't want the child it is the better choice to have it adopted or put it in a children's home. It's all better than death.
Generally I am in favour of restrictive laws heavily regulating abortions.

P.S.: I really wonder if vegans are generally in support of abortions with their respect for life on the one hand and their liberal viewpoint on the other hand.

 

[TheScientificIssole]

Well, American Christians are mysteries, they'll wave their flag around and preach out about freedom, but they'd want to take choices away from people, even one that could change someones life forever.

I am not a religious person and I think abortion is a necessary evil when it comes to health reasons or when it is a result of rape.
People who get pregnant or impregnate because they are too lazy to use a condom and then decide to abort on the other hand deserve a hard slap in the face. The problem is just that this is the reason for the vast majority of abortions.
If one doesn't want the child it is the better choice to have it adopted or put it in a children's home. It's all better than death.
Generally I am in favour of restrictive laws heavily regulating abortions.

But sometimes condoms fail and bad shit happens.

 

[II2none]

But you want people to make that decision for me? You think it's okay to FORCE someone into a tortured existence before they've even had a thought before?[/quote]

Thank you, I don't even have to throw in my two cents.

 

[masticina]

Do you value the life of the living female human less then one of a POSSIBLE living human? Just asking because many times pro-"life" people view women like they have no rights. Once the moment happens the women loses all rights to them.

Why?

But I hope you are not one of them!

IMO the exceptions are in cases of rape and if the woman's life is threatened. But aside from that, if you have sex you've got to accept the fact (especially if you take no measures to prevent it) that you could get pregnant and you have to give that person a chance to live once they've been created. I also find the argument on this topic that women should be able to do what they like with their bodies pretty strange, since the foetus's body isn't their's.
But I had a friend who had an abortion and I didn't try to stop her or force my views on her. Her mind was screwed up enough.

Mmm well it is not a simple issue that is certain. It is not a hard moral thing you can write in stone so to say because as you point out yourself there are definitely situations that call for it. 11 year olds that are pregnant that is probably going to be trouble. Most 11 year old are not bodily ready yet!

Or indeed what if it is a deadborn, it would poison the women carrying it.

I do agree that sometimes when you hear about the 11th abortion done ..sigh.. really!

I think there are deeper issues and situations that there are on an individual basis. Some people well.. yeah.. it is not nice to judge right. But sometimes you gotta shake your head but I do equally to those who have 20 children.... 20... 20! ... Come on!

You know what lets call them what they are excesses, most people hang in the middle of well the spectrums. And there always are a few.. hardliners both right or left. But most are in the middle! Or hang around it so to say!

I hope that america learns to give good sex education. That the Religious Right stupidity that teaches abstinence only is stopped so that good sex ecuation can be given. That way there is much less need for abortion!

I think abortion is not the problem, I think education and what happens before is!
Most abortions are done in the religious south.. yeah.. that kinda sucks. What if education would stop the need for it to happen. Or at least lower it!

 

[Torrasque]

Why is this a Christian cause? Who made it that way? And how is it perpetuated?

It is a Christian cause just like the argument about ethics is a Christian cause.
If you haven't taken any philosophy, you won't catch my sarcasm; most things that Christians says pertain to Christianity, actually don't, and are talking out of their asses. What makes Abortion slightly relevant to Christians, is the whole thing that they think babies are made by God, and life is granted by God, blah blah. That is why it is a "Christian" cause. Honestly, the Pope can wake up tomorrow and say "Jelly donuts are made by God" and suddenly it is a Christian cause.

Who made it that way? Read above. Also, whenever anything that falls in the ballpark of morality, ethics, right and wrong, etc., Christians seem to think that it is a religious debate, and not a philosophical/psychological debate. The only fucking things that should be discussed in relation to religion, are things that directly come from the fucking bible. Everything else--even the things that are alluded to in the bible--that relates to humans and morality/ethics/right and wrong/good and evil, is not a religious debate, but a philosophical/psychological debate.

How is it perpetuated? I'll use an analogy rather than re-state my above comments.
One day, a man sees a cat. He decides he likes cats because they look cute and are fuzzy. He proclaims "Cats are good, do not wash them because they can wash themselves". Not understanding that cats sometimes get too dirty for them to clean themselves, he continues to live his life assuming all cats clean themselves. One day, he sees his daughter cleaning a really filthy cat that fell in a mud puddle. He screams and tackles his daughter, and the half-washed cat runs away. His daughter asks "Daddy! What the FUCK!?", and the man says "Stupid daughter, do you not know that cats are able to wash themselves? How dare you do such an act on a cat. You are grounded for life." And so, the daughter (in an effort to please her stupid father) grows up and has children of her own, teaches them that cats can clean themselves no matter what.

Also: I support pro-life since my best friend would not exist if I was against abortion, and I believe more good can come of more life, than the ending of it. However, I am not one of those crazy people that goes "PRO-LIFE NO MATTER WHAT ZOMG". I understand that the woman has the right to choose for themselves, that they might have been raped, drugged, etc., and may not have the means to put the child up for adoption. So I am pro-choice, but leaning towards pro-life. I'd like the woman to have the baby no matter what, but I won't force her to.

 

[Versuvius]

I think i can sum this up with another question: Would you force a child to be born into a family that doesn't want it, or may kill the mother rather than get rid of it before it's even got a beating heart or functioning brain, when it is in fact just a tadpole looking blob with no ability to survive without behaving like a parasite? I disagree with abortions once the heart begins beating at what is it, 27 weeks? But before that, it's just goo. And honestly that threshold is plenty of time to decide to can the glob. There is no reason not to abort within those ethical boundries. The idea that life begins at conception is nonsensical jibberish.

 

[Athinira]

You NEED to know something beyond 'killing it is wrong'? -.- Seriously?

A fetus is a baby. If left alone, it will be born, it will live, and you have no right to deny it that chance. Killing it is wrong. PERIOD.

First of all: No killing is not wrong just because you say so.

If killing was wrong, how come the US has death penalties? How come President Obama authorized a mission with the objective to kill (not capture) Osama bin Laden? How come it's okay to shut down the medical ventilator of a (partially) brain dead car crash victim? How come more and more countries are implementing assisted suicide?

I'll tell you why: Because killing by itself isn't wrong, that's why.

What's wrong, however, is CRUELTY (which is an entirely different thing), and here is a the gist: a fetus isn't capable of feeling cruelty or associating it with anything (in fact, it isn't capable of associating anything with anything). A baby is. That, right there, is a huge difference.

Your argument that a baby will 'live' is also flawed for the simple reason that it won't. It might be 'born' if the women leaves it alone in her womb until she gives birth, but if she just abandons the child after that, then it won't live for very long, i can guarantee you that. That, btw, is going to be one of the consequences of prohibiting abortion: Women who are going to either leave or directly murder their newborn because they don't feel they can take care of them.

Allow me to finish this paragraph by quoting a part of my first post in this thread:

Bottom line is that prohibiting abortion is going to lead to a mass increase in the following problems:
- Children getting left (or possibly murdered) by their mothers because they can't care for them
- Children dying of hunger, because their mothers can't care for them
- Overpopulation being an even worse problem than it already is. The consequences for this is eventually going to be rather extreme as our resources are depleting.
- Women, who can't handle an extra child, breaking down (and their life along with them), which means they can't contribute properly to society.

I'm sure we can both agree that logically (and ethically), children being left to death by their mothers or dying of hunger, as well as the future welfare of our entire species, is far more serious problems than the ethical problems involved in abortion. Those simply take priority.

But i'll humor you. When DOES it become a baby, then?

When it's born.

That is just semantics however. You see, while i don't consider abortion murder, i do consider abortion after a certain period of pregnancy murder, because at that point the fetus has developed itself close enough to a baby to the point of cruelty being applicable. So in other words, i consider late/very late abortion murder, but i don't consider early abortion murder.

It seems like your stance on abortion is based upon the concept that a conceived child has been 'given a chance', and that it's cruel to take that chance away from it. My counter-argument is that if the child hasn't even gone to the stage where it's capable of understanding that it's alive, then cruelty doesn't apply, because it cannot understand (and therefore not receive) cruelty. Another argument i used was that, even if we assumed that there is a life after death (like going to heaven), if a fetus isn't capable of at least at some level recognizing that it has gone to a different place after an abortion, then why does it matter?

That's of course just the ethical side of things. On the practical side, i refer to my quote from above from my first post. Birth control is a necessity in modern society where overpopulation is a problem and BOTH men and women are working.

You see, in the old days, abortion wasn't as important as it is today for several reasons. In the old times, the women wouldn't usually be working (or at least not as much as the men), and they had to rely on the mans income to survive, which was fine because back then, people were married before they got children, and marriage was more or less permanent. In todays modern world, however, women have to stand up on their own. They have to have their own job/career, busy themself with education. Even if they marry a man (or just find a boyfriend), they cannot rely on his income forever, because relationships aren't hard fast things anymore. They can break up at any time, and if a women is depending on the man in the relationship to feed herself and the kid, that can be catastrophic both for her and the child. Therefore, modern society requires birth control.

 

[Thaluikhain]

A fetus is a baby. If left alone, it will be born, it will live

If left alone? It sorta has to be inside a woman (and the dice fall the right way) for it to develop. Many places that legalise abortions put the cut off point at when it could survive independantly.

This is not a trivial point, a woman has to put up with being pregnant in order for a baby to be born. This is no small thing, there are often serious health implications, including threat (or certainty) of the woman dying unless an abortion is performed.

 

[guntotingtomcat]

The other day at work I had to listen to a coworker (a guy I sort of like) do a mini-rant about the evils of abortion to five other guys. I was going to pop in my prepared pro-choice / pro abortion / troll speech, but I didn't bother. Not because I agreed with him, but because I really don't care anymore. Being a man, I can never have an abortion, nor can I legally bind someone against having an abortion. I'm all about freedom of choice and want it to be legal on that basis alone, but other than that it's difficult for me to work up the spirit to defend it strongly. (I mean I could, I just didn't and don't feel like it at the moment.)

The question I'm really posing was brought to me by moviebob's Breaking Dawn review. Why do so many people care so passionately and want to tell everyone why abortion is baaaaaadddddd? Entire works of art are devoted to it, even going as far back as Nightmare on Elm Street 5. It seems like a lot of Christians tend to be the "pro-lifers," but why is that really? I read the Bible. I really don't remember abortion being a topic for discussion, seeing as how the people who wrote the Bible and were alive when it took place didn't even know what germs were, let alone how sexual reproduction worked, let alone have a word for the concept of intentional aborted pregnancy.

Feel free to troll, flame, or otherwise do forum stuff that could get you banned or the thread deleted. I want to hear from both Christians, sociologists, and smart-alecks alike. Why is this a Christian cause? Who made it that way? And how is it perpetuated?

Well I am pro choice, but abortion is fairly horrible. It is difficult to argue that a fetus isn't a human being. Even the bundle of cells. What are the justifications normally? They can't think yet, they can't feel pain, they are primitive etc. This seems like you could justify euthanizing disabled adults in this way.
I'd say it is a necessary option, but only in a scenario where the baby cannot easily be provided for without financially and educationally crippling the mother who gives birth to it.
Although, I would also say it is definitely the woman's prerogative.

 

[skim172]

There's a very simple question that divides the two positions: at what point can it be considered life?

This question is inherently ambiguous. Scientifically, it's so far impossible to clearly mark what is "human" and what isn't. Because when we're talking about humans, life isn't just your cells - it involves the concept of sentience, of agency, of thought, of cohesive action. Is it alive only when it's out of the womb and blinking? Is it alive if it has a heartbeat? Is it alive if it reacts to stimuli?

Remember that for many religions, the concept of the soul is a very central one. And not just for religious people, either - many agnostics and mystics subscribe to a soul or a spirit or a life force or a life energy. And even many atheists believe in the mind as a unique entity that is not just the physical brain. For many, the soul, spirit, life force, mind, etc. is the defining factor - when that has inhabited the physical entity, it is now alive. And destroying that is akin to murder.

These concepts are intangible and difficult, if not impossible, to define. Thus, you get conflicting definitions of life and as long as people generally agree that murder is wrong, you'll get conflicting opinions on when abortion is okay.


Before anyone scoffs at this as simple naivete, remember that many pro-choicers still oppose late-trimester abortions, which means that they, too, have a belief in their mind as to when life has begun - a belief that is tied to their own intangible definition of life.

And conversely, many pro-lifers don't necessarily agree that life begins at conception. Individually, they will have their own opinions. But they maintain this hard-line for two reasons:

First, they may be unsure of their own opinion of where life begins, so they feel it's better to err on the side of safety. They'd rather be guilty of forcing a woman to hold onto something that isn't yet alive than be guilty of putting down a child that is alive.

And second, they fear that this is a slippery slope. If you say it's okay to abort in the first trimester, then what if that opens the door for even later abortions? And in a larger sense, if you legalize abortion, are you diminishing the general sensitivity to the importance of human life, leading to more horrific possibilities? (Again, you can laugh at this, but think about that creepy guy you talked to once who told you they should kill all the stupid people, or sterilize the Jews, or put the disabled in a colony.)



My general point is that this is a very serious controversy and both sides deserve consideration. This thread has a lot of people who clearly haven't done that: insane conspiracy theories and disrespectful dismissals of the other side as just "stupid" or "crackpots" are not in the least bit constructive.

 

[guntotingtomcat]

Abortion has always seemed to me to be the symptom of another more serious problem:
People in general, and young people in particular, are too irresponsible with sex. Say what you want about condoms or the pill not being 100%, the vast majority of unwanted pregnancies are a result of people either not knowing about contraception, simply not using it, or believing that some position/time of the month or technique will prevent pregnancy.
Solution?
Better sex education that focuses not on preaching, but on actual education and promoting the self respect of young girls especially.

 

[BNguyen]

I'm a Christian and I've found some of the comments to be very insulting. I believe every person has a choice to do what they want with their lives but when the thought goes through someone's mind
"Eh.. I don't really want a kid right now, so I'm just going to kill this thing inside me"

To me, it's the same as a deadbeat parent giving up on their children just because they don't want to deal with them.
"I have freedom of choice, I can kill whoever I want to kill just because I feel like it" is all it amounts to with pro-abortion people. If you didn't want a kid, then keep your legs closed, use birth control, or find ways of defending yourselves from rapists - get a gun and a license.
And I know birth control seems the same as abortion, but the birth control works to prevent conception before it can occur.

How about learning how to control yourselves before saying that a group of people is wrong for believing in something.

 

[Versuvius]

?STAN: I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me 'Loretta'.
REG: What?!
LORETTA: It's my right as a man.
JUDITH: Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?
LORETTA: I want to have babies.
REG: You want to have babies?!
LORETTA: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
REG: But... you can't have babies.
LORETTA: Don't you oppress me.
REG: I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! Where's the foetus going to gestate?! In a cardboard box?!?

 

[Cazza]

It comes down to a matter of definition.
When do you consider something alive enough to be murdered.

I scratch more living cells off my arm when I wear a itchy sweater then some early abortions, yet no one seems to cry foul at that.
Not to mention the amount of genocide we all participate in when we have a date with rosie palms.
Individual cells are not "murder" worthy, the problem is when does it become murder?
The argument is where this line should be drawn.

The cells scratched off your arm aren't going to develop into a person over time. That is their point, over time those cells will most likely become a person.

Though they don't demand that every period a woman get pregnant to stop the egg from being lost. I'm not sure if the split your seed thing is to stop the sperm from being lost. If it is then thats a biased argument.