What do you think about abortion

Post Reply New Topic

Those are instances where the doctor (or laboratory) has to *report* to the state; they are not instances where the state can tell the doctor how, or if, to treat the patient.

Keyword being "unjustified."
I am justified in ending another person's (much less a zef's) use of my body, blood and organs without my permission, regardless of what happens to them during this removal. Furthermore, I am justified in doing so in the manner that is safest for me, even if it is not the safest for them.

I hope I am never in the position where I might have to consider having an abortion, I wouldn't think it is an easy decision to make for anyone.

"Justified" according to who? You're still destroying a human being. That's never justifiable in any other context. I fail to see why those of us outside the womb get so much say when the one still inside gets none. My own children get no say about certain things: School, attending church services, what mom cooks for supper, music instruction, and our discipline methods are among those things they get little or no say in. They understand why they get no say and that this is only a temporary phase of life in which they will hopefully learn behavioral patterns that will serve them well when they get out from under our roof. But regardless of how much control I maintain, or attempt to maintain, over my household, I don't have the right to do certain things: I do not get to abuse my kids physically, to include sexual abuse, i do not get to withhold medical attention, I do not get to withhold food, and I certainly don't get to kill them when they are disobedient. If I am unable to care for my children, it is duty to come forward and say as much. If I stop feeding my kids because I can't afford to or just plain don't want to, I'll not only have my kids taken away but will also serve some jail time for neglect.

A baby still in the womb, on the other hand, does not (normally) require special attention. Given portion sizes most Americans consume on a daily basis, I doubt much of a change in diet is actually required, if any at all. No poopy diapers to change, no daycare fees to pay. Sure, there are the few weeks at the end that slow you down and some unpleasant hormonal changes that come and go, but overall a baby inside the womb is less trouble than those outside the womb.

It doesn't make sense if we're not allowed to kill toddlers that we're free to kill the unborn.

I also reject the idea that the unborn uses anyone's body without permission. Conception is a natural product of sexual intercourse, and since no form of birth control is 100% effective, all participants must accept a certain amount of risk. I really believe that two out of my three children are evidence of God's sense of humor--the second being a case of us being stupid, and the third being the ONE TIME I've ever had a condom break. We'd talked often of having a third child but just didn't think we were ready...well, ready or not...

At any rate, whether anyone likes it or not, sexual intercourse does serve as our predominant form of reproduction. Consensual sex, I think, is two bodies giving each other permission to reproduce and consenting to a new baby growing inside the mother's body if a union of gametes occurs. Intentional removal of a baby, which by default does have its parents' permission to grow inside the mother's body, with full knowledge and understanding that its death is imminent, is at best negligent homicide, at worst murder.

The key word here is CONSENSUAL. I hate the idea of making allowances for rape, but that's the only way I could see a possible justification aside from self-defense--and in the self-defense justification, more often than not there are ways to save the baby without first resorting to abortion. I mean, a c-section is effectively a termination of pregnancy with the goal of ensuring the survival of both mother and baby.

I ask again AngelRho: why do you consider murder wrong?

I view all loss of human life wrong. I mean--I'm in favor of allowing the death penalty, but I hate the reasons for it. If people wouldn't kill each other, for example, then we wouldn't need capital punishment either as a deterrent or as a means of dispensing justice for the remaining survivors of violent crimes. I see things like the death penalty as a symptom of the depravity of society rather than a problem in and of itself. Eliminate the need for it and it will go away. What disturbs me is it is the end of a road that cost lives along the way. Same goes for war. I hate it. But exactly what are we expected to do when someone attacks us or our friends? Worse things are on the way if nothing is done.

Besides, murder is intrinsically immoral. It violates practically every sense of justice human beings possess. I wouldn't want to be killed and robbed of every opportunity my life presents to me any more than I'd expect anyone else to. We owe it to this apparent fact that murder is illegal.

I say "apparent" because I don't want to get into relative vs. absolute morality garbage. Apart from absolute morality, that murder is seen as virtually universally evil doesn't make much sense; and the same could be said for any crime you can think of. At some point you just have to say that some things are just plain evil.

So murder is wrong because you are depriving someone of opportunities and they don't want that to happen?

Are you completely sure of that part of your statement? There are women for whom pregnancy is an extremely distressing experience, to say the least.

That is not correct.

...
Because they wouldn't have anything to say even if they had the physiological capability.
Because they're parasitizing someone else.
Because even if they had the brain power and physiology to say, 'please don't kill me,' the woman whose body was being used would still have the right to detach herself from the zef.

A born child is transferable; a zef is not.


That's just plain ignorant.

Any time you get into a car, you're accepting the risk of bodily harm; that doesn't mean that you shouldn't be entitled to medical treatment for an accident.


You're entitled to your religiously-based opinion about sex, but don't pretend that it's some sort of natural law. Humans are not dogs, to only have sex when and if the female is fertile and only with the intention and expectation of resultant puppies.

There has been contraception since the ages of Romans, and I guess most likely earlier.

Biological law is BS law. As humans it is our nature not to be bound by those stupid things. We can choose to have sex only for pleasure. We can even reproduce without having sex. We also get to eat meat without anyone having to hunt animals. We take vaccines instead of relying on our immunologic systems and can fly, to space even. We cook our food. Contraception methods, like condoms, abortion and even just a calendar have long allowed not to make sex tied to reproduction. In vitro fertilization has allowed us not to make reproduction tied to sex.

Naturalistic fallacies suck. I think there is something inherently wrong with claiming that other people (e.g: women) have to be tied to these natural laws such as sex = give to birth. While you, yourself throughly enjoy defying other such laws. Unless of course you obey all such laws, but your use of a computer suggests me you don't.



Who inserted this baby into the woman's body? What did the baby do with the fetus? Eat it? This sounds like a terrible and bizare allegory.

My advice would be not to put babies inside women' uterus. Once a baby is born there is no reason to put him/her back into another uterus, that sounds twisted.

No. It is wrong because you are depriving someone of life. Opportunities come with that and more often than not people want those opportunities to grow and enjoy the time they have. People have an intrinsic motivation to preserve their own life. I don't know how to explain it, but I like to think we have a survival instinct for a reason.

The thing is, though, you don't get to kill for opportunity. There's simply not enough to gain that's worth another person's life. I don't get to blow up my neighbor's house with him still in it just because I think it will improve the view out my front window. He has a right to be where he is, and if I don't like the view, I can sell my house and move elsewhere.

I do, on the other hand, have the right to cause a person's death if the actions of that person put my own life in certain peril. I would want to avoid that, of course, but if a man with a knife corners me in my own home, I'm liable to shoot him for bringing a knife to a gun fight. That would be involuntary manslaughter, not murder.

No? People get locked up for murder and all sorts of other styles of destroying lives. Some even get executed for it. If destroying life is enough to take away all other freedoms and even the destructor's life, it is senseless to consider killing an unborn baby "just because I feel like it."



Elderly dementia patients lack the physiological capability and likely wouldn't have anything to say, yet they are spoken for, as should all human beings who can't speak for themselves.


Parasites are usually one species that feeds off a different host species, setting up as permanent residence in the host body as they can. Human babies are HUMAN and lack the means to stay in the PARENT body. The baby would eventually die if it couldn't be delivered. The only time parasites leave is to spread to a different host, and usually that's just a part of reproduction. Sometimes moving to a different host means the destruction of a parasite parent and destruction of the host itself. HUMAN babies don't ordinarily kill their mothers.


That detachment of the BABY from the mother happens in the natural course of the pregnancy.


The unborn child is transferable once it is well-enough developed to be delivered. Killing a human child before it is born is still killing a human child.


I'd say the opposite is just plain ignorant.

[sarc]No, I wouldn't know a thing about it. I've only just lived, nay, slept in the same bed with a woman who has been through three pregnancies and deliveries.[/sarc]

Seriously, my wife would say being pregnant is actually the easy part.



And any time a baby results from sex, that doesn't mean the baby shouldn't be entitled to being carried to term.

IF AT ALL POSSIBLE, of course...after all, car accidents don't always end in survival.

We're not talking about car accidents, anyway. That's just a red herring. We're talking about the willful destruction of human life.


Whether it's religiously-based or not is irrelevant. Does human life matter or not? Human's aren't dogs, but we do reproduce sexually just like dogs and other mammals. It's the same concept.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xat1GVnl8-k[/youtube]

By taking the risk, human beings in effect give the baby permission to be there. I don't care if in the mind pleasure is the initial goal of a sexual encounter. If you want to look at it from a non-religious perspective, you might say that natural selection chose those for whom sex is pleasurable to be the main ones reproducing...we're more likely to do it if we like it, which would encourage us to reproduce as part of our evolution. Whatever. Whether God made us that way or we evolved that way makes little difference. The function of sex in the human life cycle is to reproduce. Whether we like it or not, we are effectively giving our sex cells permission to have a meet and greet at your place and inviting a baby to move in.

Last edited by AngelRho on 28 Jul 2013, 10:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

^ I was suspecting that for a while.
The fact that your wife had an positive experience with pregnancy does not mean every woman does. The point I've been trying to get across to you for a while now is that pregnancies can be a horrible experience for some women, horrible enough it would warrant an abortion. This is one of my keystone arguments for abortion; if they were merely an inconvenience that would probably tip the scales and I'd argue for waiting it out until the fetus can survive outside the body. But pregnancies are not merely an inconvenience

Also, sex in humans did not evolve for merely reproductive reasons. Most animals have sex strictly when the female is in estrus, humans are one of the very few species who have sex outside that period. It is believed sex also serves a social bonding function on humans.

Of course I'm completely sure.

I understand that pregnancy CAN be extremely distressing. I never denied that. My wife endured placenta previa with our second child.

But even given placenta previa and the frequent scares that came with it, never once did my wife change an unborn baby's diaper or have to pay for her daycare. She was even allowed to bring her unborn child to work. Amazing how that works, isn't it?

The fact that some women have a negative experience with pregnancy does not mean every woman does.


The point I've been trying to get across to you for a while now is that Jews can be a horrible experience for Germans, horrible enough it should warrant genocide.


No, pregnancies are not merely inconveniences. They are the harboring of human life until that life can move outside the womb.


Well, sex also spreads deadly diseases, forces one sex into subjection to another (it's logically possible that a female-dominated society could exist and bring men under subjection, so don't think I'm being unfair here), objectifies people, and carries a huge potential for abuse that we often see in practice. The "social bonding" we see seems to have often done a tremendous amount of harm.

I'm not against sex for pleasure. Keep in mind that with my most recent child I was trying to avoid getting my wife pregnant and things didn't quite work out as "planned." However, it seems that the closest guarantee to worry-free sex that you're going to get is by having it in a closed, monogamous relationship so that if "accidents" or "blessings" happen, they happen in relationships that ensure a loving and safe home for the baby that results. Doesn't matter if couples are "prepared" or not. Doesn't even matter how much money they have. We live below poverty level and do just fine without any kind of welfare benefits. If you think about it, children are just houseguests, anyway. So, yeah, I'd encourage committed, monogamous couples to have all the sex they want and enjoy it.

As for others who cannot handle the risk, it's just better to avoid sex altogether.

I think it is not an appropriate topic for discussion similar to people should never discuss politics, religion, rumors, etc. But then what would people talk about....