Abortion....why?

[DracoSuave]

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?

It's really simple. If you believe an unborn child is a living being with the same rights as those who have been born, and you believe that life should be protected, you're pro-life. I don't understand how the pro-life argument doesn't make sense... it's 100% logical.

The argument isn't difficult to understand. If you're going to be meaningfully pro-choice, then it helps a lot of you try to understand the other side's point of view.

Whether their argument is based on true or false premises is a completely different matter; there's no definitive right answer there. (The reason I am pro-choice despite my beliefs--I am not capable of having children so I am not capable of weighing in on the argument in a meaningful, rather than authoritative manner)

 

[Saxnot]

*snip*

OH, thats what you were getting to. okay, i gethcha now.
Allright. So essentially the point is that we cant know for sure what the childs life will be like, but we DO know what his mthers life will be like. So she feels as though it's best if her child didnt get to be born? Allright, why however would it be irresponsible to have the child be in the foster system? it's so much more responsible than saying " well I'll be a GREAT mommy" or " eh, it'll live on the streets". I'd say that it'd be the most responsible thing for the child to be born and live in the foster care system. I guess that all in all, philosophically it'd vary from case to case, but still, the child does have its own life, shouldnt that be respected?

i see your point. it's not by definition irresponsible to give a child up for adoption at all.

the crux of the problem is that we can't be sure either way. even if the child grows up with his own parents he might end up bad. it is therefore essentialy very difficult to make grounded arguments for or against the life of the child from that perspective.

foster care might work or it might not. we can't be sure.

which forces us to look at this from another perspective. i would say that the first choice in that regard should be the mother, and what she wants (assuming she's capable of making these kinds of decisions).

you might say that we should look at it from the childs perspective, but even the assumption that the child has a will to live is difficult to ground. we simply can't know.

in short then, the mother is the best reference point we can have with regards to this question. (assuming, again, she's responsible enough to make it)

this brings me to your last point: shouldn't we respect the life of the baby?
i say this is diffficult, again. what can we know about this life? how can we speak for or against it?

if it is something inherently so valuable that it's more important than the certainty we can derive from the mother's assement, how can we ground this inherent value?

 

[Something Amyss]

Sorry, I'm a little confused. I believe that birth control, contraception etc is fine. But after conception that baby, foetus, human, whatever, has been created and exists, and in my opinion you shouldn't consciously remove or kill it once this has been set in action.

Except for a few exceptions.

So you're okay with killing an embryo?

Edit for additional comment: You indicated you weren't excluding fertilised eggs by asking how you were excluding them. Yet you're okay with birth control. Do you understand how birth control works?

 

[Something Amyss]

Those aren't living, GROWING beings. A fetus will be born a human unless something is done about it, while eggs and sperm only has the potensial.

Except after fertilisation. Do you understand how birth control works?

 

[Macrobstar]

There is no rational reason to have an abortion, even from a pro-choice view! If you don't want/can't support a kid, keep your legs closed. Don't punish your own child's life because you have no self-control. Put it up for adoption, there are millions of families who want children but aren't capable of having their own.
Abortion is murder, anybody that tells you otherwise is full of shit.

Abortion is not murder, a fetus is not a conscious life. Until it is born its a parasite living off of the mother and it is the mothers life whether to keep it. The mother could have gotten pregnant from failed birth control or in a worst case scenario rape. It is a much simpler and kinder thing to do to end the possibility of a human life then have a child abandoned from its mother in the adoption system when it is fully sentient. In the end though it all comes down to what the mother wants to do, a child is a heavy burden and if you think anyone who doesn't want to live with that is "full of shit" then you sir are an assh*le

 

[mb16]

if it isnt sentient, it isnt a human. its just a mix of cells.

 

[Stublore]

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?

Wow, where to begin?
First off here's some breaking news, abortion is NOT a modern invention/discovery.
It's probably been practiced since the dawn of time. However from what little I know, the method of the past would include "herbal" remedies, rather than surgery.
Do you think that it was only in the past century that people were able to make the connection that sex=babies? Some more breaking news, that's been know for a much longer time.
Amongst it's many contradictions, the bible says that life is precious. Christains extrapolate from that that life now begins at conception, so abortion = murder(never mind the fact that most of them also seem to have no problem with the Death Penalty, but consistency and the bible/christains have never been bedfellows).
As for why they want others to know this so passionaltely? I suspect because they are not really allowed to have sex for fun, so the idea that others do so, often with gusto and regularity, drives them insane with jealousy. If it's not good enough for them, it's not good enough that others should have a good time either!
Who made it that way? Idiots/bigots.
Who propagates it?
Idiots/bigots.

 

[Raven_Operative]

I know this is kind of hypocritical since I'm a christian but my stance is that since the fetus (a rather large bundle of cells) isn't sentient, killing it is just as bad as scratching my arm hard.

Both kill cells, neither are self aware.

 

[michiehoward]

Wow, today was the first time I said my opinion on abortion here at the Escapist. I usually avoid these threads like the plague, but I thought "what the hey"

And I actually read a large amount of posts, glad too see there are people who see this issue from a same point of view.

 

[Rin Little]

Because everyone needs something to ***** about and a lot of people need a reason to feel better than someone else, abortion just happens to be one of those things that lies within the parameters to say "You are a horrible person for choosing it, and I'm better than you because I don't" without any need to understand why the person might have chosen pro-choice rather than pro-life.

 

[zelda2fanboy]

Why are you trying to find logic in people who don't function logically? Why would you expect it in people who actively refute it as evil?

When you ask them "why" you're doing something they refuse to do, let alone answer honestly, so you can't expect a real answer out of it.

But there is a "reason" for things, even if it is not a logical one. I feel some very valid points were made in this post from Haagrum

Spoiler

{As lacktheknack says, if you take the view (based on religious beliefs) that (1) people have souls, and (2) "ensoulment" occurs at conception, then abortion is a form of lawful homicide committed against the most vulnerable "people" in the world. If you accept that position as true (leaving aside the lack of actual evidence), it's fairly simple to see why people would get pretty steamed up about the "evils" of abortion. If you reject or question any element of that understanding, "pro-lifers" will probably seem like nutters to you.

For some, it is even more objectionable because it places freedom from the consequences of irresponsible or immoral conduct (including consumption of drugs or alcohol) ahead of an innocent person's life. This trumps any other concerns for many - although I can't see how genuine threats to health for a pregnant woman could be so easily disregarded. Taking an absolutist principle and attaching both moral judgments and religious tenets to it... well, it's easy to see why some people would take it to the lengths that some anti-abortionists do.

I don't hold with the view that the religious traditionalists just want to subjugate women or, as prestoprozak says, to punish people for having sex outside marriage - although I'm sure many of them do. In most cases, I'm confident that it is simply an under-considered and dogmatic certainty which drives opposition, without the compassion that comes from taking the time to consider why someone might want to end a pregnancy or the effects (of either carrying to term or terminating). There is a bias built into our biology which means that men don't have to deal with the consequences of those choices or attitudes in anything like the same fashion as women.

In fairness to anti-abortion campaigners, they are correct in saying that abortion is undesirable. No-one should ever view abortion as being anything other than a "least worst" option, or that women should have more of them. It's just a shame that there is all too frequently a readiness to judge and an unwillingness to help - while many are willing to condemn, few are willing or able to suggest alternatives. Don't get me started on the ineffectiveness of "teen abstinence" programs. Demonising abortion is a lot easier than presenting a "better way" (or one that isn't bound up in the advocate's personal religious beliefs, at least).

TL;DR: Because it's easier to judge or disapprove than to help or show compassion.

OT: Why are so many "pro-lifers" also in favour of the death penalty, and why do a minority of them promote violence/murder against doctors who perform pregnancy terminations? I've met many devout Christians who are utterly opposed to abortion and capital punishment, which is internally consistent at least, but I can't understand how a different view can be reconciled with the "sanctity of human life" approach. Surely, if life is sacred, there should be no moral distinction between intentionally taking the life of an unborn child/foetus for "the mother's health/convenience" and intentionally taking the life of a convicted murderer who is in custody for "justice/vengeance"?}

 

[Raven_Operative]

Who made it that way? Idiots.
Who propagates it?
Idiots.

Hey, don't lump all Christians together like that. There are plenty of us who think reasonably, and are pro choice.

 

[DracoSuave]

Okay, let me ask you a question: Would you be willing to undergo the same destruction of your body that is performed on the unborn during an abortion, and if not ? why?

Yes, if I felt the reasons were good enough.

QV: Cancer.

 

[Suicidejim]

Personally, I can hardly say abortions are a purely good thing, I believe they should only really be used when there is no other option, but they do have a place in society, and it should be left to the individual to decide whether they have an ethical problem with the procedure.

That said, I do understand the pro-life position's point of view, in that they frequently consider the unborn foetus as an equivalent to a living, breathing baby, and thus equate the process to the murder of an infant, which is obviously not something that people should be given the choice to do. That, and there is often a fear that abortions can encourage unsafe sex and promiscuity, since pregnancy is no longer a deterring factor. I disagree with those positions, but I respect them, which is why I am firmly pro-choice, since it allows those who find abortion immoral to decline the procedure, while still allowing others the freedom to do so.

 

[JMV]

For the record, you don't need to be religious to not be in favor of abortion. Just wanted to throw that little nugget out there.

OT, I really don't like discussing this in public forums, because no matter what my opinion is, it is going to be bashed and deemed either "dirty-hippie" or "fascist-pig", so I'll just say that I believe in planning and contraception. After that (although that is really the whole basis of my feelings towards this topic), responsibility. I also think it is something that needs to exist for clinical and exceptional cases, so it could NEVER be banned.

But yeah, I don't discuss this with anyone anymore, and it feels like it's slowly becoming less of a taboo, as is (almost) every taboo nowadays. In a society of growing tolerance, no matter what your opinion of it is, it doesn't make much sense to forbid people from doing it, if it is truly what they desire, even if morally questionable.

 

[Thistlehart]

It's not about the babies, or 'right to life', because these people are the same ones who don't give a shit about providing for these children after they're born. They are clearly against birth control, the single best way to prevent abortions from being needed in the first place. They don't oppose 'abstinence only' education in schools, the only possible thing i can think of that fails with more regularity than prayer. It's not obviously not about life. It's about their extremely uncomfortable standing with sex. Outlawing abortion is about punishing the diry sl*ts for having the AUDACITY to have sex.

I hate to say it, but ^This! ^This! A thousand times ^THIS!

What it really boils down to is that the religious types that hate abortion also hate the idea that sex can be a pleasurable past-time and not a (as they believe) a shameful act for the sole purpose of reproduction.

They are also jealous and bitter because they know that their beliefs limit their ability to experience all the flavors of life. The fact that people are out there having more fun rankles them. Misery loves company, and they want to legislate theirs.

 

[Use_Imagination_here]

For the life of me I can't decide which side is morally correct. And as I just decided 25 seconds ago, my policy on situations like that is to go with whatever is more practical and beneficial to society in general. And for the life of me, I can't figure out which is. And as I just decided 10 seconds ago, my policy in these situations is to go with what feels right.

So GO ABORTION! WUU!

And I suppose it's probably because christians are a bit dumb. And I have to admit, more idiots are pro life than pro choice.

 

[Thaluikhain]

The child only has it's own life when it's not DIRECTLY dependant on a physical connection to another human for survival. Pregnancies spontaneously abort all of the time, are we collectively responsible for murder for not doing more to stop that from happening? After a child is born, if that child suffers from a chronic and usually terminal illness a mother has a right to declare ADVANCED MEDICAL DIRECTIVES that could involve but are not limited to:

Not feeding the child until it dies.
Refusing medication that is keeping the child alive.
Taking the child off of respirators, IV fluids and other forms of life support.
Giving DO NOT RESUSCITATE orders for the child.

But apparently a mother has NO AUTHORITY to make any kind of these decisions while the child in inside her body and completely dependant on the health of HER BODY for survival.

Exactly...haven't seen it explained this well for awhile.

 

[Truehare]

It's pretty late in the thread, but I will state my opinion here all the same. And no, I didn't read this thread past the first page, so I may well be repeating what others have already said.

First of all, I am not religious. I mean, I am, but I am not Christian. I am a Discordian, and my religion is all about choice and how each one of us sees reality differently from others. But I am still strongly against abortion.

This is why: for me, the moment of conception is really defining, for the simple reason that the new-formed embryo already has all the genetic information that will determine who that person is. Before conception, it's all pretty much in the air, depending on which spermatozoid is going to "win" the race, but when that race is over, the new individual is already defined. It doesn't matter it's just a bunch of cells, those cells are already on a very strict process of evolving into a specific person. And interrupting that process, from where I stand, is the same as interrupting any other life, i.e., it's killing.

And before anyone yells "you are a man, what do you know about the subject? blahblahblah", I was forced to analyze the matter pretty closely at a young age, when my girlfriend got pregnant twenty years ago (we were both sixteen). We both considered an abortion, but decided against it simply because we couldn't live with ourselves if we went through with it. My son is now 19 years old and one of the best things that happened in my life, despite all the hardships I went through while raising him. So I say: if you act irresponsibly by having unprotected sex (like I did), you have to be prepared to take responsibility for the results of your act. Hiding behind the "choice" argument doesn't change the fact that you are killing an innocent person without giving them a chance to defend themselves.

Now, I think that freedom is the ultimate good, and preventing life is removal of all freedom. So abortion should be allowed if the "child" agrees to give all of his freedom to his mother.

I wish I had read your post before writing mine. You put things in such an obvious light that I feel my post is useless now.

Note: In my ramblings up there I didn't consider the matter of abortion in cases of rape or if the mother and/or the child wouldn't survive birth anyway, because those are exceptions, not the rule. Those would be the only valid reasons to have an abortion, in my opinion.

 

[HalfTangible]

I used 'it' to refer to the fetus/baby, not killing in general, and I don't support assisted suicide. (I support the death penalty because the person has already made choices that (for obvious reasons) show the person is a danger to society and people in general)

You speak as if the 'if' is an absolute truth - that it will happen, it's simply a matter of when. Abandoning the baby is no different than aborting it, doesn't make it any less wrong.

You can't justify murder on the basis of 'the species will be better off'. Because that means serial killers should be left out to wander the streets. Heck, probably given medals.

Wait, let me get this straight for a minute: First you argue that you support the death penalty because the person has made choices that shows they are a danger to society/people, and then you argue that you can't justify murder just because it's better for the species. I hate to say this, but those two arguments directly contradict each other, because the reason death penalty still exists in modern society is to get rid of people 'for the better of the species'.

Ok, yeah, my bad, I should've phrased it better: You can't kill somebody INNOCENT just because it'll help the species.

The thing you don't seem to get here is that the only difference i see between a baby and a fetus is that the latter hasn't been born yet: the fetus is still a human being, it's innocent as a baby. So unless the mother is at risk of death from it (and i mean serious risk) there is no reason to kill the fetus.

By your definition, that means it's ok to kill people who can't feel pain (yes, they exist) slowly and the Holocaust's gas chambers were perfectly acceptable, as they killed the people quickly.

Actually that is not what i said. What i said was more in line (but not exactly equivalent) with postulating that it's wrong to kill people who can UNDERSTAND pain. A fetus is perfectly capable of feeling and reacting to pain, but it can't understand it, and therefore can't understand cruelty.

It doesn't understand WHY but it can sure as heck (by your own admission above) feel pain.

Not to mention that the road to the gas chambers were already paved with fear, terror, despair, hunger, violence (in some cases torture), uncertainty and murder. Even IF we by my definition could excuse the holocaust chambers (and that is a big IF), you can't excuse everything that lead up to it.

I didn't bring the whole camp into debate (i'm not THAT ticked) just the gas chamber. When brought to the gas chambers, they were told they were just going to get a shower.

'Abadonment is worse than abortion' is not a valid point - you can't solve one problem by making another worse.

Yes it is. Abandonment makes a child SUFFER. A fetus cannot suffer until it is at a certain stage of pregnancy.

You just repeated the same point. The one i just said was invalid for a reason you did not address.

Your argument here relies on the inherent assumption that abortion is a problem. That abortion is a problem is an opinion, not a fact.

Was it you or the other guy who said that abortion was the lesser of two evils? I thought it was you =/

My argument is based on this: that individual life begins when the egg is fertilized, not when the baby is born, or when it can start feeling pain. Birth control doesn't kill a fertilized egg, it prevents the egg from being fertilized at all.

Which in short means that your argument is based upon you defining 'life' as "when a child being given a chance".

I'll assume the quote is a typo because it makes no grammatical sense. Also i don't know what it's saying.

That's about as valid as a christian arguing that a child is given a soul during conception, and it's forbidden to kill a creature with a soul.

At the end of the day, those two definitions are rather arbitrary, and based on personal beliefs rather than science. Most people are as likely to take your point as they are to take the other.

Fetuses are innocent and (for the most part) killing them serves no purpose. Why EARTH would it be okay to kill them? It makes no sense!