Abortion....why?

[Haagrum]

I'm going to sound really odd by saying this, but I am an atheist...and pro life

you see, i view that the minute 2 different genes come together to form an entirely new set of genes ( i;e conception) that life begins.
Thus, i believe it is murder to do an abortion. Because the right to live, is the most supreme right that we as humans hold ( not given by a creator in my book). Thus no right can infringe on it. The only time i believe it is okay, is when the mother is going to die along with the baby, because if life will be lost anyway, there might as well be a choice in he matter to be held by the one making the choice. Plus abortion as a practice seems selfish to me. It's be Like saying " i did something, but i dont wanna live with my actions, so I'm going to just get rid of a problem" of course, i'm not talking about rape, obviously a girl didnt make a choice, the rapist did, and he made a sick disgusting choice. But why harm an innocent party that did nothing in the matter?

It's not odd, it's what you believe. Without seeking to get into an argument about our respective opinions, your position depends on your thesis about when human life begins. That's fine. I don't think anyone believes that pregnancy terminations are "desirable" occurrences. I just think it's not as black-and-white as you appear to be asserting.

(1) The right to life is the most important one, since it tends to be a pre-requisite for exercising any others. However, "pre-eminence" of a right does not equal "absoluteness", especially since they may conflict with the same right possessed by another. Is another person's right to life sacrosanct if they're trying to kill someone else? Most people (and the law) would say no, largely because it's coming into conflict with another person's right to life. If that first person must be killed to prevent the death of another person, and if that's acceptable (if still undesirable), then that right to live is not absolute.

If the right to live is not absolute and can be limited in certain circumstances, the question is where the line is drawn, not whether it is drawn at all. Again, this comes back to "when does human life begin?" and I'm not trying to convince you that you're wrong. I am merely pointing out that reasonable people may differ on the matter and that in practice it is not as simple as "Life > All".

(2) Mistakes happen, even with the best of intentions. Aside from abstinence, no method of contraception is perfect. Sometimes, those mistakes are the best thing that ever happens to the people involved. Sometimes, they are not. Automatically casting someone who falls pregnant (or indeed, their partners - but it's usually the women who are criticised) when they didn't plan it as "irresponsible" is frequently inaccurate and somewhat insensitive.

(3) If you have ever had the opportunity to talk about the "selfishness" aspect of terminations to a person who has been through an abortion process - whether they're male or female - I doubt that the person will express anything other than sorrow, remorse and guilt. They almost certainly won't be brushing it off or seeing it as a "convenient escape". Some people, I'm sure, actually are that callous or irresponsible - but banning abortion on the basis that it might be abused is hardly a considered response. The same logic could be used to justify banning civilian possession of firearms, alcohol or motor vehicles.

 

[Vicarious Reality]

I wonder if these people who want to legislate abortion also eat meat?

 

[aei_haruko]

I'm going to sound really odd by saying this, but I am an atheist...and pro life

you see, i view that the minute 2 different genes come together to form an entirely new set of genes ( i;e conception) that life begins.
Thus, i believe it is murder to do an abortion. Because the right to live, is the most supreme right that we as humans hold ( not given by a creator in my book). Thus no right can infringe on it. The only time i believe it is okay, is when the mother is going to die along with the baby, because if life will be lost anyway, there might as well be a choice in he matter to be held by the one making the choice. Plus abortion as a practice seems selfish to me. It's be Like saying " i did something, but i dont wanna live with my actions, so I'm going to just get rid of a problem" of course, i'm not talking about rape, obviously a girl didnt make a choice, the rapist did, and he made a sick disgusting choice. But why harm an innocent party that did nothing in the matter?

It's not odd, it's what you believe. Without seeking to get into an argument about our respective opinions, your position depends on your thesis about when human life begins. That's fine. I don't think anyone believes that pregnancy terminations are "desirable" occurrences. I just think it's not as black-and-white as you appear to be asserting.

(1) The right to life is the most important one, since it tends to be a pre-requisite for exercising any others. However, "pre-eminence" of a right does not equal "absoluteness", especially since they may conflict with the same right possessed by another. Is another person's right to life sacrosanct if they're trying to kill someone else? Most people (and the law) would say no, largely because it's coming into conflict with another person's right to life. If that first person must be killed to prevent the death of another person, and if that's acceptable (if still undesirable), then that right to live is not absolute.

If the right to live is not absolute and can be limited in certain circumstances, the question is where the line is drawn, not whether it is drawn at all. Again, this comes back to "when does human life begin?" and I'm not trying to convince you that you're wrong. I am merely pointing out that reasonable people may differ on the matter and that in practice it is not as simple as "Life > All".

(2) Mistakes happen, even with the best of intentions. Aside from abstinence, no method of contraception is perfect. Sometimes, those mistakes are the best thing that ever happens to the people involved. Sometimes, they are not. Automatically casting someone who falls pregnant (or indeed, their partners - but it's usually the women who are criticised) when they didn't plan it as "irresponsible" is frequently inaccurate and somewhat insensitive.

(3) If you have ever had the opportunity to talk about the "selfishness" aspect of terminations to a person who has been through an abortion process - whether they're male or female - I doubt that the person will express anything other than sorrow, remorse and guilt. They almost certainly won't be brushing it off or seeing it as a "convenient escape". Some people, I'm sure, actually are that callous or irresponsible - but banning abortion on the basis that it might be abused is hardly a considered response. The same logic could be used to justify banning civilian possession of firearms, alcohol or motor vehicles.

Very intesting points. now for my responses
1: i believe that the right for a human being to live is greater than any right, except ittself. For example, freedom of speech, a wonderful thing, but if somebody sudennly says ' that man over there is an undercover cop" in a crime infested neighborhood, then that man moght die because of what the person who spoke out said. Needless to say, in that instence, freedom of speech was sacrifieced for the right to live. However, if one person kills another person in self defence, then the right to live was violated. Which, yes, technically is true. idk, I just think that rights are to be respected, and if somebody tries to infringe on them, then thats wrong, and that amongst allrights, that the greatest one is the right to live.
2: Yep, I agree, contraceptives fail. I agree. I also dont think that it's all irresponsibility, sometimes it is, but not always, totally. However, i believe that people should live with their actions in this case. When 2 people create life, I believe that you HAVE to be responsible for the child you produced. Not saying that people are always irresponsible, accidents do happen, 100% correct, couldnt agree more. However, I think that no matter what, that if one brings life into the world, that it is the responsibility of both partners to make sure the living being is raised in the world ( again, the rape example being the exception, the kid should have the right to live, but if the mother doesnt want the kid being near her, fair enough, she let him live, thats good enough)
3: I agree, some people feel tremendous remorse for it. I was more or less just complaining about the whole stigma behind it. More about the people who are that callous, then about people who feel bad.
my main point is that a person should have the right to live, unless by living somebody else must die, and that because abortion ends life, it is wrong. Thats my opinion, no biblical " because jesus says" or any " women are just bitches" talk. I believe it is not right because it ends life, and I believe that all people deserve the right to live, provided that they dont end other life by doing it. But yes, i believe that some rights supercede others, because some rights are of more value than others.

 

[Mookowicz]

I thought it worthwhile to offer some context.

The medical term for a miscarriage after 6 weeks is clinical spontaneous abortion, though the popular term "miscarriage" makes it sound like the mother was somehow at fault for "failing to carry" the pregnancy. The rate for spontaneous abortions is around 10% for women in their early 20s, rising to over 90% for women over 45. A pregancy with a genetic disorder has around a 95% chance of being spontaneously aborted.

I mention this to show that nature itself terminates a lot of pregancies for what is in evolutionary terms, quite sensible reasons, and to show that a lot of the emotion attached to termination is created by the language in which we talk about it - "miscarriage" sounds like neglect, while "abortion" sounds like a mistake. In reality they're part of a continuum of ending unviable reproduction.

Childbirth is one of the biggest events in the life of an adult, and a notable event for society. Whatever the cause of an ended pregnancy, there can be trauma to both parents (especially the mother), and anxiety among family and friends. We tell stories about the event and the trauma, trying to find meaning in it. Being the creatures that we are, we'll often lay blame.

When we invent meaning, we also invent morality -- though this is often based on veiled self-interest. Religions who want more followers may insist on more children. Being unable to face death, we may decide that all life should be preserved (though nature itself holds to no such scruple). Fearing the death of our own children, we might blame the mother for some failure or neglect (though abortions are not contagious). The community has a vested interest in its own continuation, so there's community pressure toward childbirth in most societies. Lastly, most adults are delighted by children. The idea of not having a child to coo over is often disappointing -- even if it's not our child.

Unfortunately, this can put the parents (and especially an expectant mother) in an invidious situation. Parents can only do a good job at parenting when they have the time and resources to do so. All around the world, mothers kill their newborn in times of famine just to preserve their existing families. Whatever our sensibilities, it is ignorant to overlook just how ruthlessly self-interested humans tend to be when it comes to reproduction.

Abortion is not the best way to control reproduction. It's messy, potentially dangerous and late in pregnancy it's potentially inhumane. We have better tools for many circumstances and should encourage their use. But when people step in to speak for the life of something that is neither conscious nor independently alive, they're assuming authority on the basis of nothing more than their feelings and myths. There are definitely times when society should step in during pregnancy, but most times I think we're just bullying out of ignorance and self-interest.

 

[Orinon]

Well I can't say I'm qualified to give an approval or disapproval of Abortion. I'm a guy, I'll never, ever get pregnant, whats more from biological/Evolutionary/Anthropological standpoint, Men weren't the best with children Primitive man probably nailed about ten different women a day, in nature the male usually impregnates the female and disappears. now yes there are exception and I know that a good father loves their child unconditionally. but its not always like that, Thousands of men would sleep with a women, not even caring about them personally they just thought they were hot (and technically that's allowed, so even though I personally think that makes you a scumbag, I gotta keep my trap shut) and would probably leave at the first opportunity, and if the girl is pregnant its
"sorry girl your on your own." and then flee as fast as they can.

now what was all that rabble about? Well I'm trying to give context to this fact, A man is capable of not caring what happens to his offspring. A This doesn't really happen in women, they are biologically wired to care about the fetus growing inside them.
So in my personal opinion, Its amazingly difficult to abort a fetus, if I ever get a girlfriend and she ends up having an abortion you can bet your ass I'm going to be reassuring her, (It'd be her choice, it's her body, her rules) I'd be doing everything I can to make her feel better. Another note on this girlfriend abortion thing, if any catholic person yells at her screaming murderer, yeah I'm gonna hurt them.

I do oppose he anti-Abortion laws as they were made from an earlier time were the only viewpoint taken into account were that of White heterosexual men, and those men know nothing about pregnancy or the feeling of attachment.

Now if you excuse me I'm going to cry because i just remembered I'll never have a girlfriend

 

[Orinon]

nom nom nom went the post monster

 

[ZacktheWolf]

I hope every baby Christian pro-lifers save grows up to be gay and/or transgendered.

 

[DanDeFool]

It's a religious thing because the best way to have a ever expanding group of followers is to have your followers have kids. The more kids they have, the more future followers. This is why Catholicism is particularly large. Think of families who are stereotyped as being "large families" and what religion are they? Most of the time, they are Catholic. People are going to have sex, the best way to cash in on this is to ban contraceptives and abortion so as many kids are born into that religion as possible.

I think I remember hearing some nonsense about "not casting your seed on the ground" coming from the bible (I guess?) as the justification for banning contraceptives (and masturbation too, I suspect).

Whatever the theological justification for it, I figure you're spot on for the underlying motivation for that kind of belief. Good luck getting any hardcore Christians to understand that though. I've spent hours trying to explain to Catholics how priests being disallowed from marriage was a church mandate because of inheritance concerns, with... mixed success.

 

[thiosk]

Entire works of art are devoted to it, even going as far back as Nightmare on Elm Street 5.

Does it seem weird to anyone else that those two things are in the same sentence?

I became equally unable to continue the discussion after reading this as well. Had this not already been posted, I would have likely made the identical post.

 

[coolkirb]

Ugh why does this get discussed on forms, nothing good will come of it...............all well I guess people just like to hear their views validated by other like minded people.

Also as an FYI

-Catholics believe that life begins at conception so abortion is murder to them
-They also believe that sex is supposed to be unative and procreative so it is used to express feelings of love between to people and to procreate, if both of these are not present sex should not occur

 

[Dense_Electric]

I'm probably just preaching to the choir here, but I don't think most people who are pro-choice are pro-abortion, they're just that: pro-choice. Abortion is a very ambiguous issue since it's one of the few social issues you can actually make a logically sound argument against (you could argue that it denies the child their rights, and you wouldn't actually be wrong), but at the end of the day I, and pro-choice advocates in general, think it's best if the choice is left up to the parent, not the government.

 

[Ice Car]

By the Pro-Lifers logic, they are also murdering baby chicks by eating eggs. Hypocrites! I'm definitely more Pro-Choice on this matter.

 

[Sharkeyes]

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.

Well, just from what I was taught, and I promise you every Christian has a different view on it, but I was always taught life was one of the holiest things there is. While there is the argument that the fetus is not actually alive, there is the fact that it is a CHANCE for life. I think that is where some of the pro-life stance among Christians comes from.

Now, there are some instances where I see abortion as acceptable. I will never argue with a woman who has been raped if she wants an abortion. That is her choice. Likewise, if the health or life of the mother is greatly jeopardized then it may indeed be necessary. My problem stems with people who simply do not want the child. They could simply let the child be adopted to people who may desperately want children but cannot produce them, but instead, they choose to end the life, or chance of life, of the unborn child.

 

[WeAreStevo]

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.

See, this is the main problem I find with the majority of Christian groups defending to the teeth that abortion is evil and anyone who has one is going to hell.

There is so much BS in the bible that people overlook (See also: Leviticus) and then they cram all this stuff that never appeared in the bible into their argument saying "The bible says it's wrong" as if it were fact.

Personally, I feel that it should be a choice. Pro-Lifers love to talk about people using it as a form of birth control and how horrible that is, but I feel that nobody really takes into account the gravity of the situation. I am sure there are people who get them and are very ambivalent about it, but they are a slim minority.

Plus, what people don't seem to remember is that if it becomes outlawed again (Roe V. Wade overturned) then women who are in desperate need of an abortion (possibly to save their life or if the baby was made through incest or rape, as most GOP politicians feel it should never be allowed regardless of circumstance) will be returning to "back yard butchers."

I understand people have their views (FSM knows I have mine) but it's when you begin to force those views onto another person that I find fault.