Abortion....why?

[Syzygy23]

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?

Life begins at conception, therefore to abort a fetus is to extinguish life, which is to commit an act of murder both by a legal definition and the Christian definition last I checked.

Best case scenario it's 2nd degree manslaughter if the fetus is endangering the mothers life.

Also, you say you read the bible and can't find any instance of a pro-life message, so what do you call Proverbs 31:8-9? "Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves...defend the rights of the weak and helpless." (I've seen other versions where weak and helpless are replaced with poor and needy, not sure which is the original but then again the bible is over 2,000 years old and has been translated numerous times so I try to take it all in with a grain of salt)

Proverbs 31:8-9 works in tandem with "You shall not murder." (Exodus 20:13)

Simple as that really.

 

[Yopaz]

As for why Christians think it is bad, well the Bible says murder is bad, so by putting two and two together... I think you can do the rest.

So, why is fighting wars okay? Or the death penalty?

I don't think the death penalty is allowed by Christian logic, but the bible says "You shall not murder" so they make a difference between killing and murdering. Murdering is bad, killing for a cause is perfectly fine. Or to say it in a different way. Christian logic is no logic.

OT: I think Christians are more against it because they believe the ethics of the bible, and by twisting what the bible says enough you can get them to believe that Jesus spoke to the masses and told them abortions should be illegal because it's a worse crime than rape, arson and murder combined. If something gets said enough people start believing it.
It isn't necessarily because of religion, in the start I think the protesters against it were more common than those who were for it. Birth control of any sort was heavily debated when it was introduced. With abortions I think people started to protest out of ignorance, then they started the pro-life vs pro-choice. As ignorance left us more became pro-choice, but the religious nuts aren't known to change their beliefs with increasing technology. They still think that a book written 1600 year ago is accurate enough to explain the creation of the world.

 

[Something Amyss]

Which is why you're not allowed to use birth control if you're a Catholic. Which is why Catholics tend to have huuuuge families.

I was addressing someone who is caught in the middle and therefore probably is NOT Catholic, though.

 

[Athinira]

I agree with you but want to point out that the boundaries between what does and does not deserve moral protection is a slippery slope at best. An infant has no concept of what a colt 45 is. If I were to place said handgun to the infants head, it would show now negative reaction as it simply cannot grasp the concepts of firearms and death. Levels of awareness and rationality alone are hardly grounds for moral protection.

Nope, but placing a colt .45 to an infants head is neither cruel, pain inducing or life threatening in itself. Now if you fire the weapon on the other hand.... It's not really a good analogy you're using there As we know, ignorance is a bliss, and an infant is as you say ignorant of the potential danger involved in your scenario.

As for the slippery slope, in one of my earlier post, i hypothesized the question this way: If i was arguing this point with a christian, and for a moment took his belief that there was a life after death, would the 'victim' in its current state be able to feel, or at least even on some REMOTE level understand that it had come to the afterlife/heaven/a different place, because if it can't, then how can it have been cruel to bring it there?

You see, infants are in fact far enough developed to have some sort of 'understanding' of what happens around them, even though it takes place a very minimal level (as well as the fact that they can't rationalize it). They can, for example, recognize if they are moved to a new environment. Fetuses aren't capable of that (at least not until a very late level of pregnancy), they are only capable of instinctive reactions, which is to say everything they do is a reflex. Sure they can react to pain, but they don't understand it, nor understand that they move their body. An infant understands pain perfectly fine, even if it cannot rationalize the reason behind it or how it should react (beyond crying).

My point being friend, what level of certainty do we have that, prior to reaction to external stimuli, the entity is not a life unto itself? That is the point I make. I'm well aware that, where abortion is legal, late-term and mid-term abortions are only undertaken when the mother's life is in significant danger.

Incidentally, if you'd care to provide links to such studies, I'd be happy to read them. Knowledge shared is knowledge multiplied.

I didn't use any special articles to argue my point here. It's based on previous reading (including from a Science Magazine that isn't available on the internet). It's not hard to Google them. There is in fact so many searches about the subject that Google already has it in it's auto-complete bar (for example "when does a fetus feel pain", or "how does the human brain develop in the womb"). Plenty of articles to go around, you can take your pick.

 

[HalfTangible]

I cannot BELIEVE it's even a question... It's a fucking BABY, born or not, feeling or not. Nobody with an OUNCE of decency murders a baby. It's one thing if the mother will die before the baby's born but otherwise there is absolutely NO excuse...

And DON'T tell me it's a fetus. 'Fetus' just means a baby that hasn't been born yet.

 

[Something Amyss]

How am I excluding that?

So then you DO think birth control and such are murder?

You seemed to argue that a minute ago. If you feel otherwise, please accept my sincere apologies, but you seemed to be devaluing fertilised eggs as life, given the "not have a baby" thing.

 

[Syzygy23]

As for why Christians think it is bad, well the Bible says murder is bad, so by putting two and two together... I think you can do the rest.

So, why is fighting wars okay? Or the death penalty?

I don't think the death penalty is allowed by Christian logic, but the bible says "You shall not murder" so they make a difference between killing and murdering. Murdering is bad, killing for a cause is perfectly fine. Or to say it in a different way. Christian logic is no logic.

OT: I think Christians are more against it because they believe the ethics of the bible, and by twisting what the bible says enough you can get them to believe that Jesus spoke to the masses and told them abortions should be illegal because it's a worse crime than rape, arson and murder combined. If something gets said enough people start believing it.
It isn't necessarily because of religion, in the start I think the protesters against it were more common than those who were for it. Birth control of any sort was heavily debated when it was introduced. With abortions I think people started to protest out of ignorance, then they started the pro-life vs pro-choice. As ignorance left us more became pro-choice, but the religious nuts aren't known to change their beliefs with increasing technology. They still think that a book written 1600 year ago is accurate enough to explain the creation of the world.

Nobody ever said fighting wars were "okay" unless one group of people wanted something another group of people refused to relinquish/share.

It's for that reason that the only requirement to get into heaven is to appreciate Jesus and accept him as part of the holy trinity. You could be the biggest psychopath ever, kill hundreds of people in cold blood yet still get into heaven via the Jesus method.

Also, fun fact: Jesus denounced the Old Testament. So yes, Jesus is cool with teaching evolution in school. Time for the fundamentalists to shaddup already.

Also, religious reasoning aside, abortion is still highly immoral when you look at the facts.

We base that morality on three factors:

Intrinsic value of human beings ? an intangible quality.
Common nature of human flesh and blood ? biological evidence of Law of Biogenesis, uniqueness of DNA & embryological/anatomical science.
The equality of common physical attributes of human beings - Size, Level of Development, Environment, and Degree of Dependency (SLED).

If we do not morally discriminate against human beings outside the womb with these attributes (we treat them equally as humans under the law) then such conclusions also apply to pre-born human beings because:

Size - Hillary Clinton is not considered less human than Shaquille O?Neal. An embryo is not less human than a newborn.
Level of Development ? Toddlers are less developed than pre-adolescents who are less developed than adults. An embryo is the organ development stage of a human being while in the next stage, a fetus?s organs mature, just as an adolescent?s organs mature through puberty.
Environment ? Astronauts and scuba divers do not lose their human nature in non-supportive environments. A womb is the natural environment for the pre-born at their level of development. Exposing human beings to unnatural, uninhabitable environments is an act of murder.
Dependency ? We don?t kill those who depend upon us. Infants depend upon parents/guardians for all their primary needs. Our dependencies extend to each other, and without the defense of the goodness of meeting human dependencies, none of us would be alive.

 

[LordFisheh]

Because some people feel that they are so important that they should be able do decide what is and isn't right not just for themselves but for the entire world, whether they like it or not.

 

[AnarchistFish]

How am I excluding that?

So then you DO think birth control and such are murder?

You seemed to argue that a minute ago. If you feel otherwise, please accept my sincere apologies, but you seemed to be devaluing fertilised eggs as life, given the "not have a baby" thing.

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.

 

[Syzygy23]

As for why Christians think it is bad, well the Bible says murder is bad, so by putting two and two together... I think you can do the rest.

So, why is fighting wars okay? Or the death penalty?

I don't think the death penalty is allowed by Christian logic, but the bible says "You shall not murder" so they make a difference between killing and murdering. Murdering is bad, killing for a cause is perfectly fine. Or to say it in a different way. Christian logic is no logic.

OT: I think Christians are more against it because they believe the ethics of the bible, and by twisting what the bible says enough you can get them to believe that Jesus spoke to the masses and told them abortions should be illegal because it's a worse crime than rape, arson and murder combined. If something gets said enough people start believing it.
It isn't necessarily because of religion, in the start I think the protesters against it were more common than those who were for it. Birth control of any sort was heavily debated when it was introduced. With abortions I think people started to protest out of ignorance, then they started the pro-life vs pro-choice. As ignorance left us more became pro-choice, but the religious nuts aren't known to change their beliefs with increasing technology. They still think that a book written 1600 year ago is accurate enough to explain the creation of the world.

Nobody ever said fighting wars were "okay" unless one group of people wanted something another group of people refused to relinquish/share.

It's for that reason that the only requirement to get into heaven is to appreciate Jesus and accept him as part of the holy trinity. You could be the biggest psychopath ever, kill hundreds of people in cold blood yet still get into heaven via the Jesus method.

Also, fun fact: Jesus denounced the Old Testament. So yes, Jesus is cool with teaching evolution in school. Time for the fundamentalists to shaddup already.

Also, religious reasoning aside, abortion is still highly immoral when you look at the facts.

We base that morality on three factors:

Intrinsic value of human beings ? an intangible quality.
Common nature of human flesh and blood ? biological evidence of Law of Biogenesis, uniqueness of DNA & embryological/anatomical science.
The equality of common physical attributes of human beings - Size, Level of Development, Environment, and Degree of Dependency (SLED).

If we do not morally discriminate against human beings outside the womb with these attributes (we treat them equally as humans under the law) then such conclusions also apply to pre-born human beings because:

Size - Hillary Clinton is not considered less human than Shaquille O?Neal. An embryo is not less human than a newborn.
Level of Development ? Toddlers are less developed than pre-adolescents who are less developed than adults. An embryo is the organ development stage of a human being while in the next stage, a fetus?s organs mature, just as an adolescent?s organs mature through puberty.
Environment ? Astronauts and scuba divers do not lose their human nature in non-supportive environments. A womb is the natural environment for the pre-born at their level of development. Exposing human beings to unnatural, uninhabitable environments is an act of murder.
Dependency ? We don?t kill those who depend upon us. Infants depend upon parents/guardians for all their primary needs. Our dependencies extend to each other, and without the defense of the goodness of meeting human dependencies, none of us would be alive.

 

[Athinira]

I cannot BELIEVE it's even a question... It's a fucking BABY, born or not, feeling or not. Nobody with an OUNCE of decency murders a baby. It's one thing if the mother will die before the baby's born but otherwise there is absolutely NO excuse...

And DON'T tell me it's a fetus. 'Fetus' just means a baby that hasn't been born yet.

And a sperm is just a baby that hasn't been conceived yet, therefore we shouldn't masturbate, because that's also murder?

If you can't even find a proper argument beyond "it's a baby, and that's a fact because i say so", then why bother participating in the discussion to begin with? A fetus is NOT a baby. In its early stages it doesn't even have a brain, and you can't even say it's "cruel" to kill it, because it isn't capable of even feeling cruelty. You can't equate a lump of cells with a baby, and your argument is flawed from the beginning. It's like me arguing that red and blue is the same because I'm colorblind.

I think I'll just quote George Carlin here from the video posted earlier, because his comment is rather appropriate:

"People say life begins at conception. I say life began about a billion years ago, and it's a continuous process that just keeps rolling along."

 

[masticina]

How am I excluding that?

So then you DO think birth control and such are murder?

You seemed to argue that a minute ago. If you feel otherwise, please accept my sincere apologies, but you seemed to be devaluing fertilised eggs as life, given the "not have a baby" thing.

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.

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!

 

[demoman_chaos]

It si all about the sanctity of life, which is bullshit because life is not sacred. Everything is dead used to be alive and everything alive is going to die. If life is sacred why do we massacre flies and other bugs, those are living and breathing life forms.

Until about the eighth or so month, the fetus is more or less a circulatory and nervous system with no cognitive thought.

A lot of people have no cognitive thought despite being born decades ago. Need proof, just wait until the Saturday after Thanksgiving for all the videos of the people being trampled and the fighting that friday just to save some money on DVD players.

 

[Syzygy23]

How am I excluding that?

So then you DO think birth control and such are murder?

You seemed to argue that a minute ago. If you feel otherwise, please accept my sincere apologies, but you seemed to be devaluing fertilised eggs as life, given the "not have a baby" thing.

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.

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!

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?

 

[Jegsimmons]

i don't think abortion is wrong due to my religious belief, im opposed to it because its a fucked up thing! that and i believe everyone deserves a chance at life and abortion removes that.
besides nobody ever thinks of putting the thing up for adoption anymore, or....you know...wearing a condom....or don't fuck....
now i perfectly understand the medical reasons behind it if the child has miscarriages or is causing a problem that could harm both the child and the mother. no argument from me there.

 

[CaptainKoala]

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.

 

[masticina]

How am I excluding that?

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!

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?

Fair question and I feel that it is up to the one person who has to deal with it to decide. That is the women who is pregnant! I don't hate to say it when I say she is a person with rights. That includes the right to choose about a medical procedure. That said medical procedure will end the possibility of a child being born. Again so many pregnancies go wrong.. or are aborted automatic before the women even KNOWS she was to be pregnant!

I give her the choice.. hate or love it! That is my viewpoint she is a full grown person [well I hope you know these days teenagers and sex eduation is ..another talking point] and should be able to make the choices.

And really making abortions illegal only will lead to more BORN LIVING WOMEN to die. Safe abortions might indeed cancel out the chance that this fetus becomes a human living baby. But at least it is done safe!

The women lives another day

If it is made illegal it still will happen.. if you go back a few thousand years there is enough knowledge about poisonousness herbs and berries to deal with little issues.

My point is it will happen women will seek abortions you can't stop that. Offering them a safe way to get it done so be it

And .. you know if you go the route of "but the feelings of the baby" ..it takes about 6 to 12 weeks before said "baby" even has some brain function. Guess in what point most abortions are done!

 

[HalfTangible]

I cannot BELIEVE it's even a question... It's a fucking BABY, born or not, feeling or not. Nobody with an OUNCE of decency murders a baby. It's one thing if the mother will die before the baby's born but otherwise there is absolutely NO excuse...

And DON'T tell me it's a fetus. 'Fetus' just means a baby that hasn't been born yet.

And a sperm is just a baby that hasn't been conceived yet, therefore we shouldn't masturbate, because that's also murder?

If you can't even find a proper argument beyond "it's a baby", then why bother participating in the discussion to begin with? A fetus is NOT a baby. In its early stages it doesn't even have a brain, and you can't even say it's "cruel" to kill it, because it isn't capable of even feeling cruelty. You can't equate a lump of cells with a baby, and your argument is flawed from the beginning. It's like me arguing that red and blue is the same because I'm colorblind.

I think I'll just quote George Carlin here from the video posted earlier, because his comment is rather appropriate:

"People say life begins at conception. I say life began about a billion years ago, and it's a continuous process that just keeps rolling along."

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.

The quote is more of a pun than an actual argument - life can refer both to life in general, and the state of being alive.

(Also, that sperm argument would apply to eggs, not sperm, and is nonsensical anyway because an egg and a sperm before fertilization occurs are incomplete cells)

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

 

[AnarchistFish]

How am I excluding that?

So then you DO think birth control and such are murder?

You seemed to argue that a minute ago. If you feel otherwise, please accept my sincere apologies, but you seemed to be devaluing fertilised eggs as life, given the "not have a baby" thing.

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.

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.

 

[chadachada123]

How am I excluding that?

So then you DO think birth control and such are murder?

You seemed to argue that a minute ago. If you feel otherwise, please accept my sincere apologies, but you seemed to be devaluing fertilised eggs as life, given the "not have a baby" thing.

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.

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!

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?

I have consciousness, the ability to feel pain, an already-established personality with years of memories, etc etc.

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.

Having a kid when you can't take care of it is far more repulsive than ending its (non-existent) life before it even starts.

Besides, your question is entirely irrelevant because this "destruction" is not felt in any sense by the fetus. It's like asking if I'd mind my body being cremated once I'm already dead.