Why do so many people think that abortion is acceptable?

Page 6 of 11 [ 155 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 11  Next

Edenthiel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Sep 2014
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,819
Location: S.F Bay Area

05 Nov 2015, 2:38 am

Mikah wrote:
My position is fairly simple: that life begins at conception, regardless of the circumstances.


Your position, then, is far too simple. You are equating a single cell with a person.


_________________
“For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love.”
―Carl Sagan


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 30,786
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

05 Nov 2015, 2:38 am

Mikah wrote:
Quote:
I don't think you know a whole lot about what all pregnancy entails, that is 9 months of life...and it effects hormones, mental state and has its own health risks even in a healthy woman. Sure easy to say 'its temporary' but likely much harder to actually deal with pregnancy. I know I personally could not handle it mentally and I have doubts about my physical ability to


All good points, but the moral question is how much suffering and of what kind makes it acceptable to kill a child? In my hypothetical example the victim is all but permanently crippled and needs a year of physical therapy to recover. While I have not been pregnant myself it's easy to see that the pregnancy is easier to endure. Still neither scenario would justify the killing.
Quote:
your not entitled to other peoples bodies or uterus, to dictate what they do with it


Me personally perhaps not, but as a society we can do what we like with laws. We still have laws on paper that say ingesting drugs is illegal, as is prostitution and exorbitant public nudity. Those laws are telling you what you can and can't do with your body, feebly enforced though they may be. Whatever your views on these things, the sacred cow of bodily autonomy is only held up where people need it to suit their purposes. Society can and will dictate to you where it deems it necessary.
Quote:
You seriously suggest that a women be forced to grow that embryo into a baby against their will?


I see it as collateral damage, damage that can be fixed through an extremely questionable act. See my hypothetical example.

Quote:
And then what about if a woman gets pregnant and it is found she has some health condition or too bad of general health to safely endure pregnancy?


I've covered this previously, where the risks are abnormal due to age or medical conditions, the choice to abort is justified.

@cathylynn & sweetleaf both

Whatever the embryo or fetus is or is not (nice dehumanising words). If you do not interfere with the pregnancy violently through abortion and there are no extenuating circumstances, that fetus or embryo will be born and have a future outside the womb of one sort or another. I said in a previous thread killing anyone painlessly is wrong, because you are depriving that person of future experience, good or bad. What does abortion do to the "embryo" if not that.

As the mother has the right to decide whether the being growing inside her has a future or not, so does the hypothetical maniac standing over you while you sleep, ready to extinguish you painlessly.



I don't agree with killing children, I simply don't think there should be a law against aborting tissue/cell matter that could potentially develop into a baby. I mean before the thing even starts to loosely resemble a baby it looks like the grossest parasitic worm you've ever seen....that to you is a 'child'?

And pregnancy may be easier to endure than getting crippled for life....but that doesn't make it 'easy' to endure or get rid of any of the risks that accompany it(risks not every women is willing to take). Also it costs money(check ups, any healthcare treatment and of course going to the hospital to give birth expensive stuff). It also prevents you doing a lot of physical activity not every women is in a position to just drop everything and undergo that process.

Luckily society deems you don't have to be forced to endure pregnancy, if you don't desire to and provides options to terminate pregnancy. Unless of course the religious right takes over...but plenty of people to fight and oppose that.

Also you complain about dehumanizing language and you discuss women as if we're mere vessels for babies to come through and should not be regarded in the least when it comes to pregnancy unless too young or having a health condition. As if the general risks are just irrelevant collateral damage and nothing serious to consider when determining if you should go through with an unwanted/unplanned pregnancy.

Not to mention pregnancy requires lifestyle changes not everyone can or is willing to make....are you really going to encourage that society force say a meth addicted, alcoholic who doesn't mean to change to have a baby? Or should the state spend money to involuntarily commit them to the hospital to be strapped down to a bed and cared for to make sure they don't screw up the development process or risk a miscarriage from the drug abuse?


And finally what of the morning after pill or early term abortions before the embryo even becomes a fetus...is that still without a doubt killing a 'child'?


_________________
Welcome to hell, this is the end.


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 30,786
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

05 Nov 2015, 2:41 am

Edenthiel wrote:
Mikah wrote:
My position is fairly simple: that life begins at conception, regardless of the circumstances.


Your position, then, is far too simple. You are equating a single cell with a person.


Ah yes here comes the ban plan B brigade, I just hope the every sperm is sacred brigade doesn't show up.


_________________
Welcome to hell, this is the end.


Barchan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Sep 2014
Age: 33
Gender: Female
Posts: 695

05 Nov 2015, 2:46 am

Mikah wrote:
If the law were changed in such a way that abortion was made legal only for rape, incest, severe deformity and medical reasons, I would be ecstatically happy with such a compromise


So in other words, you don't want to impose your will on all women. Just most of them. The thought of imposing your will on people you will never meet makes you "ecstatic."

What a strange, strange world you live in.

Mikah wrote:
My position is fairly simple: that life begins at conception

And you base this position on... what, exactly?

Mikah wrote:
Being "accurate medical terms" is part of what makes them dehumanising. They evoke a clinical mindset, not the emotional one necessary to see a being as human, instead of a statistic or non-human entity.

A ten week old embryo can't feel emotions, so don't try to guilt trip us with emotionally loaded terms like "child" or "baby." You might love an embryo but they don't love you back.



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,979
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

05 Nov 2015, 2:48 am

Sweetleaf wrote:
Mikah wrote:
Quote:
I don't think you know a whole lot about what all pregnancy entails, that is 9 months of life...and it effects hormones, mental state and has its own health risks even in a healthy woman. Sure easy to say 'its temporary' but likely much harder to actually deal with pregnancy. I know I personally could not handle it mentally and I have doubts about my physical ability to


All good points, but the moral question is how much suffering and of what kind makes it acceptable to kill a child? In my hypothetical example the victim is all but permanently crippled and needs a year of physical therapy to recover. While I have not been pregnant myself it's easy to see that the pregnancy is easier to endure. Still neither scenario would justify the killing.
Quote:
your not entitled to other peoples bodies or uterus, to dictate what they do with it


Me personally perhaps not, but as a society we can do what we like with laws. We still have laws on paper that say ingesting drugs is illegal, as is prostitution and exorbitant public nudity. Those laws are telling you what you can and can't do with your body, feebly enforced though they may be. Whatever your views on these things, the sacred cow of bodily autonomy is only held up where people need it to suit their purposes. Society can and will dictate to you where it deems it necessary.
Quote:
You seriously suggest that a women be forced to grow that embryo into a baby against their will?


I see it as collateral damage, damage that can be fixed through an extremely questionable act. See my hypothetical example.

Quote:
And then what about if a woman gets pregnant and it is found she has some health condition or too bad of general health to safely endure pregnancy?


I've covered this previously, where the risks are abnormal due to age or medical conditions, the choice to abort is justified.

@cathylynn & sweetleaf both

Whatever the embryo or fetus is or is not (nice dehumanising words). If you do not interfere with the pregnancy violently through abortion and there are no extenuating circumstances, that fetus or embryo will be born and have a future outside the womb of one sort or another. I said in a previous thread killing anyone painlessly is wrong, because you are depriving that person of future experience, good or bad. What does abortion do to the "embryo" if not that.

As the mother has the right to decide whether the being growing inside her has a future or not, so does the hypothetical maniac standing over you while you sleep, ready to extinguish you painlessly.



I don't agree with killing children, I simply don't think there should be a law against aborting tissue/cell matter that could potentially develop into a baby. I mean before the thing even starts to loosely resemble a baby it looks like the grossest parasitic worm you've ever seen....that to you is a 'child'?


Religious people think of life as having 'soul' - they would argue you that this parasitic worm has a human soul, therefore it is sin to kill it.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 30,786
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

05 Nov 2015, 2:52 am

Mikah wrote:
A supplementary, I am happy to discuss these extreme examples with people. But my biggest issue with abortion is that it has become a backstop for contraception, most babies are aborted for convenience, out of laziness and increasingly for minor defects and gender. If the law were changed in such a way that abortion was made legal only for rape, incest, severe deformity and medical reasons, I would be ecstatically happy with such a compromise, despite finding some of those instances morally questionable at best.


Really? do you have a source for your claim that most abortions are done for those reasons? sounds more like people trying to tell women what their motivations must be and assuming things. Also I imagine you wouldn't be so ecstatically happy when the consequences of said law change become obvious...


_________________
Welcome to hell, this is the end.


Barchan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Sep 2014
Age: 33
Gender: Female
Posts: 695

05 Nov 2015, 3:13 am

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Religious people think of life as having 'soul' - they would argue you that this parasitic worm has a human soul, therefore it is sin to kill it.

Then I would tell them their religious argument is dumb, because in my religion, life begins 120 days after conception. 8)



underwater
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Sep 2015
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,878
Location: Hibernating

05 Nov 2015, 3:27 am

I am willing to listen to any anti-abortionist who has signed up to be a foster parent, and who is willing to take on a baby with major problems, such as a crack baby with a really abusive birth family.

There is nothing like an abortion debate to separate the people who live in the real world from the people who live in a philosophical la-la-land, where nothing they do has real consequences.

The responses from a lot of the men on this thread makes it painfully obvious that they have absolutely no idea what it is like to have a baby or raise a child. If I was this clueless I'd stay out of the debate, if I were you.

The world is full of women; why don't you educate yourself, ask some questions about what working while pregnant is like, what are some of the long term health consequences, what does it do to kids to grow up without anybody to love them.

I didn't know the last bit, so I asked someone who worked in an orphanage, and read some reports on the prevalence of child abuse in orphanages. Why don't you educate yourselves?



Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 32
Posts: 1,283
Location: England

05 Nov 2015, 3:55 am

So many replies, apologies if I skip some.

Quote:
Your position, then, is far too simple. You are equating a single cell with a person.


I don't think I'm the one slipping here:

Quote:
Quote:
Mikah wrote:
My position is fairly simple: that life begins at conception


And you base this position on... what, exactly?


It seems to be the only sane position. When a successful conception occurs that "blob" has a good chance to exit the womb in 9 months and face life just as you did unless you interfere. I'm very happy to be schooled on when life occurs, how and why something is alive but no one here will have a consistent position that I can't pick apart. The terms will change, the logic will meander depending on that person's desire, they will say the fetus does not have X, X will often be a philosophical concept vaguely understood at best and most likely not present in toddlers either. Or if not it will be about no pain or fear for the little guy - which is not a good excuse. The most honest answer pro-choice people can give is "I don't know when that tissue increases in volume such that it can be said to be alive" and if that's the case surely its better to err on the side of caution.

The parasitic worm thing, we're back to dehumanising language again. Women who want the child they carry do not see it as such.

Quote:
So in other words, you don't want to impose your will on all women. Just most of them. The thought of imposing your will on people you will never meet makes you "ecstatic."


Would you have been happy when the law changed to stop persecuting gays despite never doing so yourself? How about blacks? I would be happy if people ended the mass infanticide yes. This is not about women, it's about their progeny.

Quote:
don't try to guilt trip us with emotionally loaded terms like "child" or "baby." You might love an embryo but they don't love you back.


Fair enough, I'll stick to human if you prefer. The ability of a human to love back has no bearing on its right to live.

A couple of people started talking about economic problems regarding care of these extra children. Not irrelevant but it's a tangent at best. I don't really wish to get into the darker topic of how much money someone's life is worth. Besides building a few hundred orphanages isnt going to break the bank compared to what western democracies spend on other crazy projects. Second point, you assume that with the abortion safety net removed, men and women are going to be just as careless. 100000 abortions a year do not mean 100000 extra babies a year if it were outlawed. I can certainly speak for men on this front, we would be 100 times more careful.

Quote:
Really? do you have a source for your claim that most abortions are done for those reasons?


http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/ ... asons.html There have been a few surveys done. Short version in the first paragraph: "About 98% of abortions in the United States are elective" it's not unreasonable to assume this is true for other western countries.

And finally, @almost all of you it's not our call to decide whether someone's life is worth living and end their lives prematurely.



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,979
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

05 Nov 2015, 5:37 am

Barchan wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Religious people think of life as having 'soul' - they would argue you that this parasitic worm has a human soul, therefore it is sin to kill it.

Then I would tell them their religious argument is dumb, because in my religion, life begins 120 days after conception. 8)


Then you're Muslim I guess.

Some Muslim scholars say "ensoulment" happens after 40 days though; there's no clear defining time in the Qur'an.



underwater
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Sep 2015
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,878
Location: Hibernating

05 Nov 2015, 5:49 am

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Religious people think of life as having 'soul' - they would argue you that this parasitic worm has a human soul, therefore it is sin to kill it.


Well, that would be Buddhism and Jainism I guess....the Abrahamic religions seem to be pretty ok with murder all things considered.

That said, the religious viewpoint is simpler to deal with; if your religion tells you not to have an abortion, don't have an abortion.

For a non-religious person, it is a personal choice.



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,979
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

05 Nov 2015, 7:17 am

underwater wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Religious people think of life as having 'soul' - they would argue you that this parasitic worm has a human soul, therefore it is sin to kill it.


Well, that would be Buddhism and Jainism I guess....the Abrahamic religions seem to be pretty ok with murder all things considered.

That said, the religious viewpoint is simpler to deal with; if your religion tells you not to have an abortion, don't have an abortion.

For a non-religious person, it is a personal choice.


Religious people tend to want their rules to be imposed on all humanity.

They fail to compute atheism or non-religiosity, they don't have that much of democratic thinking.



underwater
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Sep 2015
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,878
Location: Hibernating

05 Nov 2015, 7:20 am

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
underwater wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Religious people think of life as having 'soul' - they would argue you that this parasitic worm has a human soul, therefore it is sin to kill it.


Well, that would be Buddhism and Jainism I guess....the Abrahamic religions seem to be pretty ok with murder all things considered.

That said, the religious viewpoint is simpler to deal with; if your religion tells you not to have an abortion, don't have an abortion.

For a non-religious person, it is a personal choice.


Religious people tend to want their rules to be imposed on all humanity.

They fail to compute atheism or non-religiosity, they don't have that much of democratic thinking.


Amen:)



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 30,786
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

05 Nov 2015, 10:48 am

Barchan wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Religious people think of life as having 'soul' - they would argue you that this parasitic worm has a human soul, therefore it is sin to kill it.

Then I would tell them their religious argument is dumb, because in my religion, life begins 120 days after conception. 8)

I'd tell them to keep their religion out of my heathen uterus....lol


_________________
Welcome to hell, this is the end.


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 30,786
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

05 Nov 2015, 10:59 am

Also to respond to something above....I didn't say the clump of cells is a gross worm, I said it looks like one, point is at that stage its not a person it takes quite a while for it to develop into a person actually. Seems some people care more about things that can develop into people than they care about actual living people.

I mean for all the anti-abortionists, when are you going to go adopt a child or give to charity to help orphaned and unwanted children? I mean you can't have it both ways if you want to force every woman who gets pregnant to nurture that clump till it grows into a baby....then what are you going to do to help said children when they are born? Also maybe you guys ought to provide pregnancy care for women and any treatment they might need should the pregnancy cause them health issues.

Or you know people could let the pregnant woman make her very personal decision herself, instead of bringing the state in. Also a lot of anti-abortion people are right wingers, and a lot of right wingers hate taxes....how do you figure banning abortion will effect taxation the money to take care of these unwanted children would have to come from somewhere.


_________________
Welcome to hell, this is the end.