whywontgodhealamputees.com

Main Discussion Zone => Sexuality, Reproduction, & Abortion => Topic started by: mhaberling on January 10, 2013, 03:41:38 AM

Title: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: mhaberling on January 10, 2013, 03:41:38 AM
The abortion debate is one that seems to be getting louder and louder in today's society... This is my take... Abortion is wrong, in all cases except if it is endangering the life of the mother. From a religious or secular view I believe that the very Idea that this is still something we debate is rather sick. Am embryo, a fetus is not just a living thing, it is the embodiment of human potential. From the moment it is created it has the potential to be a great person. To think, to create, to love, to be loved. It has the potential to change the world, and taking that away is just sick and frankly a crime against the species as a whole. A human being is the most powerful thing in the known universe and cutting it off before it gets a chance is just not right. Please tell me I am wrong.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: William on January 10, 2013, 05:11:05 AM
... it is the embodiment of human potential ...

The planet is awash with human potential being left to beg and rot .... why force any woman to carry a burden she (and her support) cannot do justice to?

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-oqqW-Zs7D9E/ThiFkRHJdwI/AAAAAAAAAE4/BDm5g6skXfQ/s400/-HUNGER-Starving+Child+5.jpg)
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: Morgan on January 10, 2013, 07:14:45 AM
Quote
... it is the embodiment of human potential ...
Teenagers are potential doctors, so why don't we let them perform neurosurgery, run around in the OR, administer treatment and decide on a diagnosis?

Or in a more practical example, everyone's potentially dead. We all get there somehow, so why not be treated as corpses to get used to it? Or maaaaaybe because something has the potential for something doesn't mean it should be treated as such.

Edit: assuming everyone has some great potential (hint: it largely depends on what genes you're born with, when and where you are born), why does a clump of cell's potential trump the mother's? Or do you think pregnancy only means a woman is fat for 9 months, then is a-ok? There are serious physical risks and ways pregnancy can affect your body, not to mention the mental repercussions of being forced into pregnancy and labor.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: The Gawd on January 10, 2013, 07:23:32 AM
The abortion debate is one that seems to be getting louder and louder in today's society... This is my take... Abortion is wrong, in all cases except if it is endangering the life of the mother. From a religious or secular view I believe that the very Idea that this is still something we debate is rather sick. Am embryo, a fetus is not just a living thing, it is the embodiment of human potential. From the moment it is created it has the potential to be a great person. To think, to create, to love, to be loved. It has the potential to change the world, and taking that away is just sick and frankly a crime against the species as a whole. A human being is the most powerful thing in the known universe and cutting it off before it gets a chance is just not right. Please tell me I am wrong.

I am a "law" guy...

Explain to me why you think you should legislate someone elses body?
What if I think its wrong for you to take medicine to kill a virus or colony of bacteria in YOUR body, because that virus or bacteria has potential to do some good things?
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: jetson on January 10, 2013, 07:57:59 AM
It is far more wrong to legislate that a woman must carry any and all pregnancies to full term, than it is to stop an unwanted pregnancy.  The problem of abortion is not about the abortion, it is about the unwanted pregnancy.  Humans are animals, and thus they are predisposed to sexual intercourse, and that leads to unwanted pregnancies.  Those who cannot handle this simple fact, should step out of the debate, as they live in some deluded world where stopping a pregnancy is the same as murdering a baby.  Stupid.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: Quesi on January 10, 2013, 08:15:24 AM
I've said this before, and I'm going to say it again.

If you break an egg open to make an omelet, and you find a little red spec in the egg, meaning the egg was fertilized, do you change the menu to chicken?

No.  It is not a chicken.  It is a fertilized egg. 

If a woman has a fertilized egg in her body, it is not a human being.  It is a fertilized egg.  As time goes on, that fertilized egg starts to develop the characteristics of a human being. And I have serious problems with late-term abortions.  I've seen preemies born at 24 weeks, who were real human beings, who, thanks to the wonders of modern medicine, grew up to be normal human beings, indistinguishable from the general population. 

But at 6 weeks?  8?   13?  The fetus is a spec.  A bunch of cells.  A part of a woman's body, that cannot exist outside of that woman's body. 

It is a potential human being.  Every month, my body releases an egg that is a potential human being.  But a lot of things have to happen to reach that potential.  Fertilization is one step in the process.  And then there are many millions of tiny little steps that a woman's body performs before that egg becomes a person.  And each of those steps takes place inside of a woman's body.

A woman's body. 


 
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: naemhni on January 10, 2013, 08:54:28 AM
The abortion debate is one that seems to be getting louder and louder in today's society...

Is it?  I haven't noticed that.  Maybe I'm too busy in pursuit of my own two causes, neither of which involves reproductive rights.  Well, anyway...

Quote
This is my take... Abortion is wrong, in all cases except if it is endangering the life of the mother. From a religious or secular view I believe that the very Idea that this is still something we debate is rather sick.

I don't entirely agree with this, but I am sympathetic to the viewpoint and am not concerned to debate it.  Although I am pro-choice, I can understand why some people are uncomfortable with abortion.

Quote
Am embryo, a fetus is not just a living thing, it is the embodiment of human potential.

Right.  Potential.  Not a human being, but something that may become a human being.  And frankly, even calling it a "potential human being" is kind of silly.

Do you know what this is?

(http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/marcelmooij/marcelmooij0810/marcelmooij081000012/3697696-simple-macro-image-of-an-acorn-isolated-on-white.jpg)

If most pro-lifers were consistent with their views on reproduction -- that an egg becomes a human being the instant it is fertilized -- they would insist on calling it an "oak tree", which it plainly is not.  No one calls it an oak tree, and if someone were to even refer to it as a "potential oak tree", we would think they were pretty weird.

Quote
From the moment it is created it has the potential to be a great person.

It also has the potential to become a horrible person.  Pro-lifers never talk about that.

Quote
A human being is the most powerful thing in the known universe

I don't agree with that at all.  I would go with either supernovas or black holes on that one, or maybe gamma-ray bursters.




Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: mhaberling on January 10, 2013, 10:49:52 AM
It is far more wrong to legislate that a woman must carry any and all pregnancies to full term, than it is to stop an unwanted pregnancy.  The problem of abortion is not about the abortion, it is about the unwanted pregnancy.  Humans are animals, and thus they are predisposed to sexual intercourse, and that leads to unwanted pregnancies.  Those who cannot handle this simple fact, should step out of the debate, as they live in some deluded world where stopping a pregnancy is the same as murdering a baby.  Stupid.
A human embryo, is a growing human being... Individual from the Mother. It has its own genetic code and will become a , living thinking human being. Before conception, an egg or a sperm only has half a genetic code... At conception, a unique individual is created separate from the mother. Frankly your argument that Humans are animals is pretty stupid. It is already clear that there is a difference. For example, many would say owning a dog is Ok, but owning a person is not. Cows are raised for their meat... and doing the same with people would be atrocious. So you cant say that humans are animals and that makes it OK, because why that might be true it is still a human being with its own genetic code. So then please tell me how it is different then killing a child?
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: Nick on January 10, 2013, 11:02:41 AM
You are wrong.  Ok I answered that question.

That potential is there to be an evil person also.  I don't see that as the point.  The bigger point is if you bring a life into the world you should want it and plan to support it.  If not...don't do so.  There are 7 billion of us now.  This planet cannot support that many.  We are using resources up.  The planet is warming because of all of us.  We would be so much better off if we were under 1 billion on the planet.

But what do we argue about in this country.  NOt making birth control available and defunding Planned Parenthood.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: Dante on January 10, 2013, 11:08:34 AM
A human embryo, is a growing human being... Individual from the Mother.

It is not. And therein lies the point.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: ParkingPlaces on January 10, 2013, 11:48:02 AM
Building upon what the others said, especially Quesi, if abortion is wrong because a potential human being is disposed of, then not being pregnant is also wrong, because a potential human is not being conceived. If abortion is wrong, every single woman of childbearing age should either be pregnant or nursing or trying to get pregnant, 24 hours a day, because nothing else is excusable. Oh, and all this needs to be done despite sex being a big sin, because we wouldn't want to modify any old, outdated moral standards just to make creating children a little easier. Which means that all women, once they hit child-bearing age (you know, around 12) should be having sinful sex all the time and then spend their pregnancy atoning for their sins. That is what god wants, I'm sure.

I personally wish that nobody ever had to have an abortion. That every child conceived was wanted and that the parents were able to care for it. I wish that we could create a world where the subject never had to come up because all the reasons for abortion had been eliminated. But as long as we concentrate on the outcomes instead of the symptoms, as long as we complain about what is happening instead of creating different circumstances and actually fixing some of the problems that lead to abortion, we will continue to have this debate.

In the United States, having a normal, healthy baby in a hospital, with an overnight stay and the delivery, etc. costs something in the region of $16-$18,000 dollars. I base this on what it cost my niece to have a baby two years ago. That is 1/2 of what the average American makes in a year. Yes, some folks are fortunate and have health insurance to cover these costs, but not all do. I have a cousin who had three children, none covered by health insurance, because she couldn't get it. She had breast cancer as a teen and could never get insurance because of pre-existing conditions. Fortunately she and her husband had good enough incomes to allow her to have those kids, but not everyone is that lucky.

Pay attention to the "why's" of the issue. Don't concentrate on the outcome, because an aborted fetus looks the same to you no matter the reason for the procedure. If you don't like that it is happening, do something in this world that makes it a better place that offers more alternatives to pregnant women than just continuing poverty, abuse, uninsurability or bleak futures.

The actual importance of the abortion issue, as outlined by the religious right, is that it helps divide. It helps define how that particular religious denomination differs from others, especially the non-religious. Division is important to religion. So important that it rhymes. The "I'm better than you and here are some of the reasons" mentality of religion, be it over abortion or gays or school prayer or anything else is all part of the game. Hence actually fixing things like the reasons for abortion is low on religions list of to-do's.

When two or more religions agree on any given issue, like abortion, they find other reasons to dislike each other, albeit it more privately. Baptists and the Church of England can walk hand-in-hand on the issue of abortion, but if those two denominations finally got rid of everyone else, then they would start shooting each other, because division is important to religion. And once the world gets down to one religion, the adherents will start finding reasons to hate each other over different interpretations of biblical verses, because division will continue to be important.

The last believer will win. And die. And find that there is no heaven after all.

Oops.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: Jag on January 10, 2013, 11:50:31 AM

A human embryo, is a growing human being... Individual from the Mother. It has its own genetic code and will become a , living thinking human being. Before conception, an egg or a sperm only has half a genetic code... At conception, a unique individual is created separate from the mother.
You're not thinking about what you write. You say "will become a living thinking human being" - we all agree with that, emphasis on BECOME. There is no separation prior to birth - you may not like the word, but "parasitic" comes to mind. And yes, I've given birth to two little parasites myself.

Quote
Frankly your argument that Humans are animals is pretty stupid. It is already clear that there is a difference. For example, many would say owning a dog is Ok, but owning a person is not. Cows are raised for their meat... and doing the same with people would be atrocious. So you cant say that humans are animals and that makes it OK, because why that might be true it is still a human being with its own genetic code. So then please tell me how it is different then killing a child?
Not at all clear on how "animal" equates to "can be owned". No one stated or even implied any such thing. (As an aside, if your dog runs away, never to return, do you still own him?) I understand your position, but it's wrong. We ARE animals, just a single species among many. You're stuck on semantics in this case, that doesn't make it stupid. You don't get to stir a bunch of other nonsense into a refutation of what wasn't said in the first place. No one is suggesting raising people for meat.

I understand your position and objections, I really do. But think about this, if you would: under no other circumstances can MY body being co-opted against my will for the benefit of another. I can not be legally required to donate blood to my own already-alive-and-apart-from-me offspring for whom I am obviously responsible (of course I would, but that's not the point) for any reason. The abortion issue is the only case where anyone tries to argue that a person is no longer entitled to autonomy.

And just to keep things interesting, the bible itself states that life begins at first breath, not at conception. Twice.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: wheels5894 on January 10, 2013, 12:17:41 PM
Yep, this is all about the 'potential' human not actual humans. We have already seen that there is some distance between a zygote and a new born baby. Up to half of all zygotes fail to implant and are washed away. After that the attrition rate decreases but there is nothing like a guarantee that any one zygote will make it.

Now, once implanted in the womb spontaneous abortions can happen - ones done by nature not by people. If the foetus dies for example, it might well be spontaneously aborted. This can happen well into the 24 weeks plus time period where, with ,lots of effort we can keep anew born alive.

So, what I am saying is that the chances for an individual zygote are fairly small though, of course they get better as time goes on. Thus, from nature's point of view, there is no way to say that any particular zygote of foetus is a human - not until they approach birth anyway.

Now, I agree with other posters that abortion is definitely best avoided - as any surgical procedure is - and that family planning provides means to avoid getting pregnant in the first place is much to be preferred - if a person can afford it. (In the UK is is free on the NHS) However even this can fail and for those can't afford / manage another child surely it is reasonable that they can have an abortion. It just needs to be a last resort and not a regular means of family planning.

Finally, one thing that is really important - women's bodies are their own. It is not for men to tell them what to do with them and especially it is not for ministers (in dresses or not) to tell them. In a democracy women would have the right to this treatment if it is necessary and they should not be prevented by law. It should be borne in mind that women who are members of churches or religions where they are told not to have abortions will clearly not be doing so and therefore this will only apply to those who have no religion or where their religion does not ban it.

Mhaberling, did you start this thread from the religious perspective or a moral one?
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: jaimehlers on January 10, 2013, 02:35:43 PM
I'm inclined to think that some people are overreacting to mhaberling's statement.  It's certainly true that humans are members of the animal kingdom, but I don't think he was arguing about that in the first place.  To me, it looks like he was talking about treating humans like animals.  And that's just as true as the other thing.  We don't raise other humans in crowded pens to be butchered for meat, nor do we hunt other humans for food or to display as trophies, nor do we generally tolerate treating humans as property to be owned.

Indeed, if we call another person an animal, it's usually a pretty vicious insult.  And that's really the point.  We may be classified as animals from a purely biological perspective, but from a social and cultural perspective, we're anything but.  So the argument that humans are biologically animals and using that to justify things like abortion - which are essentially socio-cultural in nature - is sophistry, and weak sophistry at that.  That includes the argument that humans are predisposed towards having sex because of being animals - while true, it is also beside the point.

However, arguing that humans are special and thus that we should never consider birth control or abortion is silly.  We may treat other humans as being different than animals, but in practice, "out of sight, out of mind".  There are lots of actually living people who end up eking out a miserable and brutal existence, and who ultimately die of preventable causes.  Like hunger.  Like diseases which we have vaccines and cures for.  And that's not just in the various third-world countries.  We have people in America who suffer from malnutrition and easily treated diseases.  Who live in conditions of squalor, barely able to survive, and ignored by the very people who are weeping and moaning about the "murder of innocent babies".

I'd take their concerns about unborn fetuses a lot more seriously if they put half as much concern, or even a quarter as much, into the people who are currently living.  One of the statistics about abortion which is almost never talked about by those who oppose it is the fact that the vast majority of all abortions are done for economic reasons.  Not social, not cultural, not biological, but because the parents (or the mother) can't afford to raise the child.  And adoption isn't a good alternative.  It suffers from the same "out-of-sight, out-of-mind" problem as I mentioned before.  Adoption agencies are perennially underfunded and overworked, largely ignored by the same people who oppose abortion and tout adoption.

So, honestly, I'd take mhaberling's argument about human specialness a lot more seriously if the social conservatives who are so opposed to abortion would take steps to deal with the economic problems that ultimately cause most people to have abortions.  Ensure that people get sex education so they know what to do and not do, ensure that people have access to birth control so they aren't chained to their biology, and that would probably eliminate the need for at least two-thirds of all abortions right there.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: wheels5894 on January 10, 2013, 03:20:59 PM
So, honestly, I'd take mhaberling's argument about human specialness a lot more seriously if the social conservatives who are so opposed to abortion would take steps to deal with the economic problems that ultimately cause most people to have abortions.  Ensure that people get sex education so they know what to do and not do, ensure that people have access to birth control so they aren't chained to their biology, and that would probably eliminate the need for at least two-thirds of all abortions right there.

Definitely well said! I have thought this a lot of the Catholic Church in Europe who rant on about abortion but offer not useful help to those who might keep the child is they had help. It certainly isn't any good in our modern society sitting on the sidelines and telling others what they should do. People who do that really do need to go and help out themselves.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: Jag on January 10, 2013, 03:43:20 PM
I'm inclined to think that some people are overreacting to mhaberling's statement.  It's certainly true that humans are members of the animal kingdom, but I don't think he was arguing about that in the first place.  To me, it looks like he was talking about treating humans like animals.  And that's just as true as the other thing.  We don't raise other humans in crowded pens to be butchered for meat, nor do we hunt other humans for food or to display as trophies, nor do we generally tolerate treating humans as property to be owned.

Indeed, if we call another person an animal, it's usually a pretty vicious insult.  And that's really the point.  We may be classified as animals from a purely biological perspective, but from a social and cultural perspective, we're anything but.  So the argument that humans are biologically animals and using that to justify things like abortion - which are essentially socio-cultural in nature - is sophistry, and weak sophistry at that.  That includes the argument that humans are predisposed towards having sex because of being animals - while true, it is also beside the point.

I don't really disagree with much of what you say here, BUT: the only person who suggested anything about humans being raised for food is mhaberling himself. While I agree that humans are biologically correctly classified as animals, and that this by itself is not enough to support a pro-choice position, it's certainly part and parcel of the bigger argument here. Not "the point" but certainly part of it.

Quote
So, honestly, I'd take mhaberling's argument about human specialness a lot more seriously if the social conservatives who are so opposed to abortion would take steps to deal with the economic problems that ultimately cause most people to have abortions.  Ensure that people get sex education so they know what to do and not do, ensure that people have access to birth control so they aren't chained to their biology, and that would probably eliminate the need for at least two-thirds of all abortions right there.

Also agree with your big picture point here - correct measures would solve most of the problem, and social conservatives would get further if they were interested in solving those problems. Every indication to date is that they are not interested at all, leaving us with the alternative approach of changing one mind at a time. Or at least cracking that one mind open to the views held by people who disagree with him. I'm not actually trying to change his mind, but I'm really hoping we can get to a place when mhaberling understands the other side's positions.

Genesis grants humans "dominion over" all the non-human animals in the world. Even when I was still a believer, this is one of the things I was convinced that people had gotten wrong - I always took it to mean that we humans had been given a responsibility toward them, sort of like that of a monarch to his subjects, not a license to do whatever the hell we wanted to them. For some reason, this was a controversial view.

Even when I was actively Catholic, I wasn't very good at it.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: jetson on January 10, 2013, 06:22:42 PM
It is far more wrong to legislate that a woman must carry any and all pregnancies to full term, than it is to stop an unwanted pregnancy.  The problem of abortion is not about the abortion, it is about the unwanted pregnancy.  Humans are animals, and thus they are predisposed to sexual intercourse, and that leads to unwanted pregnancies.  Those who cannot handle this simple fact, should step out of the debate, as they live in some deluded world where stopping a pregnancy is the same as murdering a baby.  Stupid.
A human embryo, is a growing human being... Individual from the Mother. It has its own genetic code and will become a , living thinking human being. Before conception, an egg or a sperm only has half a genetic code... At conception, a unique individual is created separate from the mother. Frankly your argument that Humans are animals is pretty stupid. It is already clear that there is a difference. For example, many would say owning a dog is Ok, but owning a person is not. Cows are raised for their meat... and doing the same with people would be atrocious. So you cant say that humans are animals and that makes it OK, because why that might be true it is still a human being with its own genetic code. So then please tell me how it is different then killing a child?

Humans are animals, to deny that is actually fairly silly.  Why would you do that?  Do you feel it is necessary to say that a human is NOT an animal just so that you can place it in a more important position among species for the abortion argument?  I never said that humans deserve to be treated like we treat many animals, but humans are animals, that is all there is to it.  It is a species of animal life on this planet, called human. 
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: shnozzola on January 10, 2013, 08:01:35 PM
   Abortions are one of the tragedies of life.  I agree, Mhaberling, that an embryo is the embodiment of human potential.  My wife has a dried rose in her bible from an ectopic pregnancy 17 years ago stopped at about 1 month.  She can begin to cry anytime thinking about it.

   I will always counsel  a woman asking my advice that the embryo is the most important thing.  But I will never condemn her in any way for doing what she feels she must for the reasons she has.  Do you not understand that a woman will do whatever she must, whether it's to fight for a baby's survival, or end a pregnancy that she knows she cannot go through with?  If you think that abortion is wrong, then do not assist anyone who comes to you for support if they may consider options you disagree with.  I'm sorry, but the prolife ' holier than thou' attitude sickens me.  I'm not saying you are in this boat, but I do not like that some can't see the sad compassion necessary for a woman who must make the choice.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: jetson on January 10, 2013, 08:11:56 PM
I wish abortions were not necessary.  But again, I find it far more troublesome to take that option away from women, when we all know the problems it would cause in terms of unwanted children.

Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: jaimehlers on January 10, 2013, 08:20:30 PM
And illegal, harmful abortions.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: kindred on January 11, 2013, 11:31:54 PM
What exactly is the practical and logistical method you have in mind for effectively implementing what you think is right, OP?

The big question is a question of feasibility. Is there an effective cost-efficient way to implement making abortion illegal? What are the side-effects of such a law? Do the pros outweigh the cons? Is there something else you could spend this time and money on?
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: Lazarus on January 12, 2013, 05:40:35 AM
The abortion debate is one that seems to be getting louder and louder in today's society... This is my take... Abortion is wrong, in all cases except if it is endangering the life of the mother. From a religious or secular view I believe that the very Idea that this is still something we debate is rather sick. Am embryo, a fetus is not just a living thing, it is the embodiment of human potential. From the moment it is created it has the potential to be a great person. To think, to create, to love, to be loved. It has the potential to change the world, and taking that away is just sick and frankly a crime against the species as a whole. A human being is the most powerful thing in the known universe and cutting it off before it gets a chance is just not right. Please tell me I am wrong.

You are wrong.  If humans are the most powerful thing in the known universe, please explain how we are so easily killed by nature.

Humans are animals, nothing more, and there are way too many of us. The vast majority of humans contribute nothing meaningful, merely draining resources.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: Lazarus on January 12, 2013, 05:58:18 AM
A human embryo, is a growing human being... Individual from the Mother.

Ok then it should have no problem surviving on it's own outside of the mother, right? It's not abortion, it's just a very early adoption. It's unfortunate that none of these children survive the adoption process.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: Tero on January 12, 2013, 09:56:37 AM
What is this wrong you speak of? I can see it from a personal point of view: everything that is against me is wrong.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: Nam on January 12, 2013, 03:25:58 PM
The abortion debate is one that seems to be getting louder and louder in today's society...

Wrong. It's always been loud. It's just one side always quieted the other with nonsense or with actuality. You know how many abortion topics are on this website alone? Too many to count. Years of topics. It's never been quiet. Please with such rhetoric about it getting louder and louder: it's always been defeaning to the ears.

Quote
This is my take... Abortion is wrong, in all cases except if it is endangering the life of the mother.

Most people who are pro-choice are not actually for abortion. Abortion is more than just "abortion", it's also about a woman's right. Like, if she is raped, oh say by her father, that she has a right to not have the child especially if the girl is a child herself. That's just one horrifying example among many.

There's also the point-of-view that a woman, like a man, has a right to do with their body as they please. With certain religions telling their members that using contraception is just the same as having an abortion, or worse, and that they will burn in hell for using it, sort of drives safe-sex out the window.

Also, how about over-population? Back in the day, we had diseases with no treatment, and people warring with others to take their land at a constant, and other things to help on population control but the more people there are the less hospitable this planet will be.

But let's not take such things into consideration. Abortion is wrong 100% of the time except when harm comes to the mother.

Quote
From a religious or secular view I believe that the very Idea that this is still something we debate is rather sick.

That's because people like you think the conversation is over 'cause you're right, and everyone else is wrong.

Quote
Am embryo, a fetus is not just a living thing, it is the embodiment of human potential. From the moment it is created it has the potential to be a great person. To think, to create, to love, to be loved. It has the potential to change the world, and taking that away is just sick and frankly a crime against the species as a whole.

I find you to be a crime against the species as a whole but you don't see me complaining like a little baby about it.

Quote
A human being is the most powerful thing in the known universe and cutting it off before it gets a chance is just not right. Please tell me I am wrong.

You are wrong.

-Nam
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: Azdgari on January 12, 2013, 03:46:07 PM
Mhaberlings, how do you feel about women having "safe sex"?
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: Brakeman on January 12, 2013, 10:32:47 PM
A single woman is born with cells to produce hundreds of thousands of eggs. A male can create billions of sperm. A single couple could populate a small city in one generation and the largest in the word in two, and the planet in three. That is all POTENTIAL human life.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: ParkingPlaces on January 12, 2013, 10:43:28 PM
Not to mention that every time a good christian practices celibacy, there is a chance that another potential human went down the drain. Why do christians want it both ways.

Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: mrbiscoop on January 12, 2013, 10:53:04 PM
A single woman is born with cells to produce hundreds of thousands of eggs. A male can create billions of sperm. A single couple could populate a small city in one generation and the largest in the word in two, and the planet in three. That is all POTENTIAL human life.
A female is born with all the eggs she is ever going to have, not the cells to make these eggs.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: Brakeman on January 12, 2013, 11:06:23 PM
A single woman is born with cells to produce hundreds of thousands of eggs. A male can create billions of sperm. A single couple could populate a small city in one generation and the largest in the word in two, and the planet in three. That is all POTENTIAL human life.
A female is born with all the eggs she is ever going to have, not the cells to make these eggs.

Yes, I know what you mean, but the cells are not mature eggs at that point.
From: http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/Female-Reproductive-System.topicArticleId-8741,articleId-8729.html (http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/Female-Reproductive-System.topicArticleId-8741,articleId-8729.html)

In the human female, egg cell production begins before birth, when about 2 million primitive cells known as oogonia accumulate in the ovaries. These oogonia are formed in the early stages of meiosis. After the age of puberty, the oogonia develop into primary oocytes and then into egg cells at a rate of one per month. Egg cell production occurs by the process of meiosis.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: Nam on January 12, 2013, 11:39:03 PM
"Oogonia" -- who comes up with these words?

The stupider it sounds the more scientific it is, or something?

-Nam
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: keeta on January 12, 2013, 11:47:28 PM
ok, so roughly, the average woman has aprox 600 periods in her child bearing years, give or take a handful for various reasons...that's not millions or billions of eggs. at some point, we do run out. it's not doritos in there, we can't just make more..if they're not already there. 
abortions,& miscarriages aren't always bad things. sometimes, of course they're very bad. but if a child, molested by her uncle ends up pregnant, and has a miscarriage because her body isn't yet able to sustain another life, though able to get pregnant, is that such a horrible thing? if she continues to be pregnant and regrets the child, and abused or neglects the child, who in turn becomes some little nightmare of a shit once grown and causes all sorts of chaos, and trouble, rapes in turn, does worse..it would seem to me it would be better to just nip it in the bud as soon as possible.fyi, not everyone SHOULD have children, and maybe they know that about themselves...and accidents happen. it should always be an option, not that one has to use it, but for crap sakes don't limit a woman and what she can do with her body. choose to not use it. awesome. don't tell someone else what they can or can't do to their own body.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: jetson on January 13, 2013, 08:55:35 AM
Good point keeta.  It's always fun listening to the BS from anti-choice people when the scenario is a very young and quite defenseless 13 year old girl, raped violently by her uncle.  These people believe she MUST go through with the pregnancy, regardless.  After all, she got pregnant, and the poor little baby is totally innocent.  Oh yeah, the uncle is a bad, bad, person, but the girl is made to suffer far more by their lunacy around abortion.

Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: Nick on January 13, 2013, 09:41:19 AM
In some Southern states they would have to marry.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: Brakeman on January 13, 2013, 11:00:23 AM
In some Southern states they would have to marry.

No, Nick, in those states they are already married.  ;D

Actually, I remember a preacher preaching that "gods" marriage is to the first person you sleep with and not any ceremony. So all of us that didn't marry and stay faithful to our first are adulterers who should be stoned. I don't know if there are enough rocks here in the U.S.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: Nick on January 13, 2013, 11:21:11 AM
Depends on what kind of "stoned" you are talking about. ;)
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: Graybeard on January 13, 2013, 11:28:47 AM
Please tell me I am wrong.

You're wrong. No one is going to force anyone to have an abortion. You don't want one? Fine - don't have one. Oh! What's that? You do want one? OK, have one.

Now, where's your argument?
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: ParkingPlaces on January 13, 2013, 11:29:55 AM
I'm trying to imagine the priorities of people who think that a raped 11 or 12 or 13 year old girl should have the baby. Do previous conversations with the child go like this?

Girl: I'm hungry.
Christian adult: I know, but we're saving this food for your baby after you get raped because your child is more important that you.

Girl: I'm cold.
Christian adult: Well, of course you are. You don't have a jacket or blanket or anything. But we're saving that money so we can buy those things for your baby after you get raped. That's the way it has to be.



Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: The Gawd on January 13, 2013, 12:28:19 PM
wait, are we talking about legitimate rape, or illegitimate rape?
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: Nam on January 13, 2013, 01:35:22 PM
No, we're talking about the babies who come from a rape. No one cares about the victim. Well, except all of us but the OP obviously doesn't care about the victim, and that's what's important.

-Nam
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: Brakeman on January 13, 2013, 01:40:34 PM
No, we're talking about the babies who come from a rape. No one cares about the victim. Well, except all of us but the OP obviously doesn't care about the victim, and that's what's important.

-Nam

Nam, The Gawd was making a joke about the fundies. They claim that rape is not an excuse for abortion because god designed women's uterus' to "shut down" in the event of a "real legitimate" rape. Thus, if a girl got pregnant, then she really wanted it and must have the baby.
See the video here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtzqvqzBdUQ
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: Nam on January 13, 2013, 02:08:44 PM
And I was making a joke off his joke. I thought how I worded everything seemed to imply that.

-Nam
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: The Gawd on January 13, 2013, 02:21:35 PM
Of course we dont care about the victim...
On a serious note; I couldnt imagine being raped, becoming pregnant from it, and being forced to continue with the pregnancy with the child being a reminder everyday for the rest of my life of how I was violated. I just cant see how anyone could suggest the idea. And what do you tell Jr? Does the rapist/father get visitation rights? Can you force custody upon him? See, fundies talk a good game (actually I'm being extremely generous), but they dont have any real world solutions to the issues raised earlier in this thread or the issues I just posed. I think they dont think things through...


But I have a contraversial topic that veers off of this one... making the thread
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: Nam on January 13, 2013, 02:35:44 PM
In some backwater religions and places, the victim has to marry her rapist. Imagine that.

-Nam
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: screwtape on January 13, 2013, 02:56:25 PM
I think it is often assumed that rape victims are single.  That is often not the case.  So the idea of a married woman having to carry to term her rapists baby may have a slightly different perception. 

Try to imagine that.  Someone rapes your wife.  That's bad enough.  But she turns out to be pregnant.  And then the state of Mississippi[1] tells you she has to carry it to term. 
 1. or whatever sufficiently backwater state you want
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: Brakeman on January 13, 2013, 03:31:03 PM
Try to imagine that.  Someone rapes your wife.  That's bad enough.  But she turns out to be pregnant.  And then the state of Mississippi[1] tells you she has to carry it to term.
 1. or whatever sufficiently backwater state you want

 Not only that, most state laws require the husband to support a wife's baby regardless of who the father is.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: ParkingPlaces on January 13, 2013, 03:56:50 PM
Not only that, most state laws require the husband to support a wife's baby regardless of who the father is.

And it can get stranger than that. I friends brother and his girlfriend had three kids. Then his girlfriend got murdered. So he started raising all three kids. Then he died. His brother (my friend) and his wife took all three in and raised them for three years. Then a man showed up claiming to be the actual father of the two youngest kids. He was able to prove genetically that he was in fact the father, and after 18 months of court battles, he indeed got custody. But here's the kicker. He was able to continue collecting social security death benefits from the non-dad, since as far as the Social Security people were concerned, the dead brother was indeed the father.

Nothing makes sense. Which makes these things hard to fix.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: keeta on January 13, 2013, 05:29:08 PM
i've never had an abortion, in fact i've got a 17 yr old and 15 yr old girls. but i have been raped. luckly it didn't end up in a pregnancy, for if it had..i would have just gotten it taken care of then and there, because i know i couldn't handle having a child with someone who could then go for custody of said child (i knew my rapist), after that, i'd never want to be tied to that person in any way shape or form for any reason. not all bad guys go to jail even if you know who they are. there's just no way. and when i got pregnant with the right person, abortion wasn't even a consideration. but again, no one is going to tell me that it's not my option when it's my body.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: natlegend on January 14, 2013, 12:40:50 AM
My 2 cents...

I'm sick of this attitude that having an abortion is 'no big deal'. Personally, I couldn't imagine a more traumatic ordeal (unless rape was involved also). There seems to be this misconception that a pregnant woman might callously consider her day like this:

Husband: "So darling, what are your plans for today?"

Wife: "Well, I was thinking of buying that cute little handbag I've had my eye on, then I'm meeting Susan for a coffee, then I'm getting an abortion, and then I think I might get my hair done."

 >:(
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: Azdgari on January 14, 2013, 12:47:25 AM
Which post(s) in this thread convey that attitude to you?
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: keeta on January 14, 2013, 12:59:20 AM
nat, i don't think anyone was saying that having an abortion is no big deal. it would be one of the most difficult choices a woman has to make for herself. no one said it would be easy, i don't believe it would be, even if i had to do it one day. because under the certain circumstances, it could be a choice i may have to make one day, and if that be the case, then it's something that i would have to live with every day after that. and i would, if i had to. but that's just me. thankfully we live where we do, and are allowed to do what we feel is best for the situation we are in at the time. only the person making that choice is truely able to judge their situation accurately to know what they can or can not handle a child. rape happens. accidents happen. birth control fails. unwanted babies are born by the 1000's. neglected. under fed. under clothed. uneducated. abused. sold into prostitution. molested. abandoned. taken advantage of. that's not fair to do to a child. can't take care of yourself, don't have a kid. can't take care of a kid, don't have another. can't take care of the one you have, change that, or give the child a chance with someone who will do a better job than you. if you can't handle having a child for any reason, spare the child before it has feelings of resentment towards you for bringing it into this shit hole world. don't just have it and be a bad parent. either do a good job, or don't freakin do it. 
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: jetson on January 14, 2013, 07:41:35 AM
My 2 cents...

I'm sick of this attitude that having an abortion is 'no big deal'. Personally, I couldn't imagine a more traumatic ordeal (unless rape was involved also). There seems to be this misconception that a pregnant woman might callously consider her day like this:

Husband: "So darling, what are your plans for today?"

Wife: "Well, I was thinking of buying that cute little handbag I've had my eye on, then I'm meeting Susan for a coffee, then I'm getting an abortion, and then I think I might get my hair done."

 >:(

Go to the Planned Parenthood site and read up on abortion.  They talk about the process (taking a pill for most), as well as the emotional aspects for the women.  I'm not sure what you think is happening, but it's no longer anything like what the anti-choice people would like you to believe.

Even though the pill makes the process far less invasive according to the PP articles, women still experience emotional issues, and the process is generally not taken lightly by most women.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: Nam on January 14, 2013, 04:38:31 PM
My 2 cents...

I'm sick of this attitude that having an abortion is 'no big deal'. Personally, I couldn't imagine a more traumatic ordeal (unless rape was involved also). There seems to be this misconception that a pregnant woman might callously consider her day like this:

Husband: "So darling, what are your plans for today?"

Wife: "Well, I was thinking of buying that cute little handbag I've had my eye on, then I'm meeting Susan for a coffee, then I'm getting an abortion, and then I think I might get my hair done."

 >:(

I think the use of contraception to most men/women (boys/girls)[1] use it without a thought in their mind; and I am sure some of the younger guys probably always vote for the abortion ('cause they're idiots) but I don't think that most girls who think about having an abortion just come to it as no big deal. That's usually propaganda spewed by those against abortions.

-Nam
 1. for those with the intellect to use them
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: shnozzola on January 14, 2013, 05:44:00 PM
Wife: "Well, I was thinking of buying that cute little handbag I've had my eye on, then I'm meeting Susan for a coffee, then I'm getting an abortion, and then I think I might get my hair done."

 >:(

Nat,
   If I understand your post correctly, it reminds me of the great journalist Molly Ivins, writing about the late term abortion debacle during the Dubya administration, when she said in her most sarcastic voice, of a 7 month's pregnant women waddling past an abortion clinic, "Oh yeah, now I remember what I wanted to do."

   I believe you are commenting on the prolife vicious, condescending view that many women  don't give abortion a second thought.  The heartlessness of the prolife's understanding of prochoice makes my blood boil.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: Nam on January 14, 2013, 05:58:29 PM
They'll most likely never believe that pro-choice doesn't equate to anti-life.

-Nam
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: Brakeman on January 14, 2013, 08:05:49 PM
Personally, I think a lot of the psychological pain is due to the christian conditioning that a woman's purpose in life is to have men's babies without question and they are bad and selfish to want to control their reproductive lives and thus their own life. I want my daughters to understand that they could chose how many babies they are going to have and when. If a woman wants to have two kids, it doesn't mater to society which two she choses out of her own body.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: natlegend on January 14, 2013, 09:39:26 PM
Like I said guys, it was simply my 2 cents. The closest I've come to having an 'abortion' myself was when I was 19 and at university - the condom my partner and I were using broke, and the next day I went to the chemist and prodcured a dose of the drug RU486 (much to the the disgust of the pharmacist, who looked at me like I was some sort of mass murderer and serial baby-killer). Needless to say, I felt terrible about the entire ordeal. I strongly believe that abortion should never be used as a form of contraception[1]

BUT. Back to the OP, there are so many differing situations when it comes to abortion that I believe it simply cannot be summed up in a single thread. Nevertheless, the mother should AWAYS come first.
 1. There are those of you who would say here that my use of the drug RU486 WAS in fact used as a contraception at the expense of a potential child, but in case you are ignorant of the use of this drug, it simply brings about an earlier menstruation and does NOT abort a fetus
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: Azdgari on January 15, 2013, 12:04:46 AM
Like I said guys, it was simply my 2 cents

I take this to mean that you refuse to respond to the comments of anyone who responded to yours, even the ones (like mine) that asked for further explanation of what you meant.

I strongly believe that abortion should never be used as a form of contraception
Nevertheless, the mother should AWAYS come first.

These statements contradict each other.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: screwtape on January 15, 2013, 10:36:37 AM
I'm sick of this attitude that having an abortion is 'no big deal'.

For you, it may be a big deal.  For others, it isn't.  Why is that a problem for you?

Why is the idea of getting an abortion a big deal to you? 

Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: jaimehlers on January 15, 2013, 11:08:38 AM
Honestly, a decision about abortion between two people in a committed relationship isn't going to be a matter of one person or the other making a choice and the other having to live with it.  That is a really good way to destroy such a relationship.  Ultimately, it is going to be a decision that the two of them have to share.  If there isn't such a relationship (whether it's a one-night stand, sperm donorship, or rape), then there's no real argument for it being anyone's choice but the mother's.

As far as whether it's a casual decision...I don't think it is.  Because, you see, a fetus may be nothing more than a bundle of differentiated cells at that time, but it will eventually grow into another human being.  That isn't something that I can ignore, or pretend to myself that it doesn't matter because it isn't currently a human being.  That particular batch of cells will only ever get that one shot at becoming a human being, and I don't think that can be disregarded.

I'm not going to tell other people what they should think about this issue, but that's what I think.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: wheels5894 on January 15, 2013, 11:20:14 AM
I'm not going to tell other people what they should think about this issue, but that's what I think.

...and that's the best answer to this topic. No one should prescribe what a woman should ultimately do, whoever they are. Especially if they are men in dresses!
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: natlegend on January 15, 2013, 02:39:12 PM
Are you f@#king serious?

Yes.  I'm serious.

Why are other people's feelings about it a problem for you? 

I don't see abortion as a big deal, provided it was an unintended or unwanted pregnancy.  I can imagine situations where it would be a big deal.  The situation you shared strikes me as a cut and dried, easy as it gets decision.  I cannot see myself even thinking twice about it or agonizing over it for a moment.  But for you it was not that. 

I'm not pissed off at you or other people who see it differently.  I'm just trying to understand where you are coming from.

You don't have to answer.  My intent was not to upset you or make you feel bad. 


All I can say is, each to their own. For me, it's something I never wish to experience. Ever.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: screwtape on January 15, 2013, 02:49:55 PM
Are you f@#king serious?

Yes.  I'm serious.

Why are other people's feelings about it a problem for you? 

I don't see abortion as a big deal, provided it was an unintended or unwanted pregnancy.  I can imagine situations where it would be a big deal.  The situation you shared strikes me as a cut and dried, easy as it gets decision.  I cannot see myself even thinking twice about it or agonizing over it for a moment.  But for you it was not that. 

I'm not pissed off at you or other people who see it differently.  I'm just trying to understand where you are coming from.

You don't have to answer.  My intent was not to upset you or make you feel bad. 


Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: Quesi on January 15, 2013, 03:28:18 PM
Are you f@#king serious?

Yes.  I'm serious.

Why are other people's feelings about it a problem for you? 

I don't see abortion as a big deal, provided it was an unintended or unwanted pregnancy.  I can imagine situations where it would be a big deal.  The situation you shared strikes me as a cut and dried, easy as it gets decision.  I cannot see myself even thinking twice about it or agonizing over it for a moment.  But for you it was not that. 

I'm not pissed off at you or other people who see it differently.  I'm just trying to understand where you are coming from.

You don't have to answer.  My intent was not to upset you or make you feel bad. 


All I can say is, each to their own. For me, it's something I never wish to experience. Ever.

I certainly cannot speak for all women, and I personally have never had an abortion, so I cannot even speak from personal experience.  But I have accompanied friends to abortions, and I have discussed upcoming abortions (and past abortions) with friends in very different circumstances, and at very different times in their lives.  Some include the scared high school senior, who doesn't want her parents to know.  The torn college student, who wanted to have kids, but not no, not yet.  The middle aged professional with kids in college, who was shocked to find that she could still become pregnant.   The loving mom of 3 who thinks maybe it would be great to have one more kid, but who is advised by her doctor that the health risks, given a serious pre-existing condition, would make a pregnancy dangerous to her. 

Abortion is an invasive medical procedure.  It is nasty.  And there are hormonal changes going on in many pregnant women, that amplify emotions.  And, whether the woman considers the pregnancy to be an unwanted "thing" growing in her body, or the potential child that she wants but can't have, it is a highly emotional experience for most women.

And then there is the question of who to tell, and who not to tell.  The fear of being judged.  The decision of who to bring with you to the procedure.  And finally, there are the "what ifs" that happen years later. 

As a young woman, fresh out of college, I thought that I was pregnant.  I was not ready to have a kid, but I talked about it with my boyfriend, and we decided I would have the baby.  It turned out that I was not pregnant.  But even now, I count the years of how old that child would be, and ponder how different my life would have been if I had become a mother so young.  And when I think back, 99% of me is so relieved that I have had the life that I have had.  And 1% of me is wistful.  Many (most?) women who have abortions count on their fingers too.  The child would be 7 now.  17 now.  Can you imagine, me, with a child that age?

And then there is the aftermath.  If a young woman has an abortion, and then years later, tries to become pregnant and miscarries, she will probably fear/wonder whether the earlier abortion has impacted on her ability to carry a child to term.  Or if she gives birth to a preemie after a previous abortion, she might blame herself for the pain that her newborn is going through. 

Perhaps, for some women, the decision to have an abortion is not a big deal.   But not for anyone I know.   
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: Bagheera on January 15, 2013, 05:07:53 PM
The abortion debate is one that seems to be getting louder and louder in today's society... This is my take... Abortion is wrong, in all cases except if it is endangering the life of the mother. From a religious or secular view I believe that the very Idea that this is still something we debate is rather sick. Am embryo, a fetus is not just a living thing, it is the embodiment of human potential. From the moment it is created it has the potential to be a great person. To think, to create, to love, to be loved. It has the potential to change the world, and taking that away is just sick and frankly a crime against the species as a whole. A human being is the most powerful thing in the known universe and cutting it off before it gets a chance is just not right. Please tell me I am wrong.

You can extend that argument to all human life, from the embryonic to the very old.

Here is my non-religious take on abortion. It is the birthright (apologies) of the human species:

-that something unseen less real than something seen;
-that something smaller is not worth as much as something that is bigger;
-that the ability to communicate makes someone human, and without that ability humanity is in doubt

Those are part of the elements of being human that make abortion more acceptable than infanticide. Also, from the standpoint of pregnancy/childbirth itself:

-childbirth is still dangerous
-enforcing pregnancy reduces women to the role of incubators

And is the big one from modern cultures:
 
Maintaining the survival of the fetus at all costs essentially means controlling the bodies of two living things when the one hosting the other is fully capable of  making decisions about its own body and all that is in it.

And that's pretty much it. Note that I haven't provided my opinion on whether I think abortion is wrong, although you may infer what you will from my opinions about why abortion is not looked on as murder by many. Note that I haven't touch on the whole argument about resources and the poor, because it is pretty much accepted that, unless under extreme circumstances, killing an infant child is horrible, yet terminating a pregnancy is less bad.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: Brakeman on January 15, 2013, 06:22:19 PM
.. And finally, there are the "what ifs" that happen years later. 

As a young woman, fresh out of college, I thought that I was pregnant.  I was not ready to have a kid, but I talked about it with my boyfriend, and we decided I would have the baby.  It turned out that I was not pregnant.  But even now, I count the years of how old that child would be, and ponder how different my life would have been if I had become a mother so young.  And when I think back, 99% of me is so relieved that I have had the life that I have had.  And 1% of me is wistful.  Many (most?) women who have abortions count on their fingers too.  The child would be 7 now.  17 now.  Can you imagine, me, with a child that age?
..
Perhaps, for some women, the decision to have an abortion is not a big deal.   But not for anyone I know.

Yes, perhaps that's true in this day and age, but with greater education comes greater solace in making a correct choice.

Because you can live in only one reality, you can't get a good idea of the ramifications of previous choices.  But a well studied individual can know that any other previous choice would preclude all of the following choices. If you had been pregnant and had carried the baby, your entire life would have been different. You may have died in labor, you may have had a defective baby, but what is more likely, the children that you have now, wouldn't have been the same children you could have had then. Even if they looked alike with the same birthday, they would have had a vastly different mother and household and would not be the children you see today.

Would you exchange your current child for the previously possible child? In most instances that is what you would be doing. Women are pretty good today in stopping to have children and limiting the overall number of children they have. So basically any child birthed today is one less than you would have tomorrow.

In a similar light, do you sit back and pine away for the "what if's" of choosing a different husband?

Some do perhaps, but friends will generally consul them to forget that and look only at the commitment you have. The idea of bemoaning a previous lover is looked down on today and pushes against social mores. Hopefully someday women will see that choosing when to progenate is a choice that is taken soberly and with planing and not a luck of the draw, oopsie kind of choice.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: jetson on January 17, 2013, 08:55:48 AM

Abortion is an invasive medical procedure.  It is nasty. 

Only if the choice is in-clinic abortion, I would think?  Using the pill or the shot to prevent continued pregnancy seems like a much easier choice (although it has time limits).  I have read about the emotional toll on women who choose the pill, and I'm sure it's no joy ride.  I would hope that advances such as the pill make it far less intrusive and nasty.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: godzilla on January 03, 2014, 08:00:18 PM
I am pro life, probably one of the few here. At least Gallup says I am one of 19% of Atheists that claim to be pro life.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: Azdgari on January 03, 2014, 08:14:02 PM
Pretty sure most atheists are "pro-life" - though that says nothing about their stance on abortion.  Did you mean "anti-choice"?  Because that's more descriptive most times.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: Nam on January 04, 2014, 12:57:24 AM
I am pro life, probably one of the few here. At least Gallup says I am one of 19% of Atheists that claim to be pro life.

"pro-choice" does not equate to "anti-life". That's asinine.

-Nam
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: Mooby on January 04, 2014, 08:08:56 PM
Pretty sure most atheists are "pro-life" - though that says nothing about their stance on abortion.
Not quite.  "Pro-life" is a movement that covers several different "life issues," including abortion, the death penalty, euthanasia, assisted suicide, IVF, and embryonic stem cell research.  In each of these cases, those who identify as "pro-life" tend to take the position that the action leading to death is unethical and thus should be outlawed.  Maybe it's possible for someone to be pro-life on all those issues save abortion (there certainly those who are anti-abortion yet pro death penalty who claim to be "pro-life"), and I'm certainly not Lord of the Labels.  But I do think it shows a fair bit of ignorance to hand wave and say that most people are pro-life,[1] just as it shows a fair bit of ignorance to hand wave and say that evolution is "just a theory."  We should endeavor to use terms with proper meaning, not to twist them into the meaning that is most convenient for us.

Quote
Did you mean "anti-choice"?  Because that's more descriptive most times.
I fully admit to being anti-choice in many areas, which usually takes the form of me wanting punishment for those who make those choices anyways. 

For instance, I am against giving people the choice to rob banks, stores, or other people.  I am against giving the average person the choice to purchase a nuclear warhead, regardless of how much they really want it.  I am against giving people the choice to see how fast their car can drive through neighborhoods where small children may be playing.  I am against giving people the choice to randomly walk around sucker punching other people for fun.  I am against the choice to murder one's coworker to remove competition for a promotion.  I am against the choice of a child and adult to engage in a sexual relationship together.  I am against the choice to purchase another human being as property.  I am against the choice to kill an unwanted child after birth and yes, as it happens, I am against the choice to do it before birth too.[2]

 1. Presumably with the implication that not actively wanting to kill other people is all it takes to qualify.
 2. Before you point out the blatantly obvious, I would like to note that "anti-choice" does not describe a defined movement but rather an adjectival criticism (and really a straw-man criticism at that) of the anti-abortion position.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: RED_ApeTHEIST on January 04, 2014, 11:36:42 PM
I am against the choice to kill an unwanted child after birth and yes, as it happens, I am against the choice to do it before birth too.

Could you define child in the context of that sentence?
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: Mooby on January 05, 2014, 12:38:43 AM
Sure, let's go with "Human organism before puberty."
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: Antidote on January 05, 2014, 12:43:18 AM
I'm pro-life and pro-choice, with certain limitations, those limitations being rape, incest, life-threatening complications, and terminal defects, such as Anencephaly.

Abortion isn't "wrong", it just needs checks and balances, like everything else in life.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: Azdgari on January 05, 2014, 02:11:30 PM
<snipped>

My only point, Mooby, was that the term "pro-life" and its implication that those who do not share the opinions of "pro-lifers" regarding abortion are "anti-life" is misleading at best.

At worst it is dishonest polemic language.  No wonder you approve.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: Nam on January 05, 2014, 02:19:53 PM
<snipped>

My only point, Mooby, was that the term "pro-life" and its implication that those who do not share the opinions of "pro-lifers" regarding abortion are "anti-life" is misleading at best.

At worst it is dishonest polemic language.  No wonder you approve.

Well, from my understanding of what Mooby said is that "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are movements not abstract terminology. I don't get how "pro-choice" even signifies "anti-life" unless one focuses on the choice of death rather than also the choice of life but then one would have to consider that a fetus is life rather than not.

-Nam
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: Mooby on January 05, 2014, 03:18:21 PM
My only point, Mooby, was that the term "pro-life" and its implication that those who do not share the opinions of "pro-lifers" regarding abortion are "anti-life" is misleading at best.

At worst it is dishonest polemic language.  No wonder you approve.
I did not invent the term, nor have I explicitly approved it or disapproved of it.  I consider myself pro-life because my views on abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, assisted suicide, embryonic stem cell research, and IVF are all consistent with positions of the pro-life movement.

Thank you for calling me dishonest, though.  I find that ad hominems are the best way to show confidence in my views, and clearly you agree.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: RED_ApeTHEIST on January 05, 2014, 03:25:17 PM
Sure, let's go with "Human organism before puberty."

So would gametes count?
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: Mooby on January 05, 2014, 03:56:26 PM
So would gametes count?
No, gametes are not organisms as animals do not undergo [wiki=Alternation_of_generations]alternation of generations.[/wiki]
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: Azdgari on January 05, 2014, 05:36:33 PM
I did not invent the term, nor have I explicitly approved it or disapproved of it.

"Explicitly" being the operative word.  Wouldn't want to be open and honest, would we?  That's a deadly sin.

I consider myself pro-life because my views on abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, assisted suicide, embryonic stem cell research, and IVF are all consistent with positions of the pro-life movement.

That is approval of the term.  You are using it to self-describe.  Will you be honest about that?  Of course not.

Thank you for calling me dishonest, though.  I find that ad hominems are the best way to show confidence in my views, and clearly you agree.

The slime just pours out, doesn't it?  Typical of you.  Then again, as you've said, that'll be taken as a compliment.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: Mooby on January 05, 2014, 07:06:05 PM
"Explicitly" being the operative word.  Wouldn't want to be open and honest, would we?
I'm pretty sure that answer was both open and honest.

Quote
That's a deadly sin.
No it's not.  Go look up the deadly sins.

Quote
That is approval of the term.  You are using it to self-describe.
No it's not.  There are plenty of atheists who describe themselves as such while openly disapproving the term. (http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/129701-in-fact-atheism-is-a-term-that-should-not-even)  Joss Whedon self-describes as a feminist while openly disapproving (http://jezebel.com/watch-joss-whedon-make-the-perfect-speech-about-the-wor-1460080685) of it as well.[1]  So no, there is no binding force that makes one approve of the terms they use.

That being said, as I already told you, I neither explicitly approve or disapprove of the term "pro-life."  There's no grand conspiracy to why that is; I just haven't gotten my panties in a wad about it enough to care one way or the other.  To me, the word is as neutral as "cat" or "banana" or "potato", and if you want to twist it to assume that those who consistently assume positions on life issues that allow for the killing of a human as "anti-life," that's your problem.  I agree with the positions of the movement, and I have no objections to the term.

Thank you for calling me dishonest, though.  I find that ad hominems are the best way to show confidence in my views, and clearly you agree.
The slime just pours out, doesn't it?  Typical of you.  Then again, as you've said, that'll be taken as a compliment.[/quote]
Another ad hominem?  Your confidence must be growing with each successive post.  Thank you for establishing that you agree with my position.

I must appear really weak now; two posts and I haven't even called you any names.  Quelle horreur!
 1. I'm inclined to agree with him.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: LoriPinkAngel on January 05, 2014, 08:14:41 PM
It seems to me that many of the people who call themselves pro-life are really just pro-birth.  They are the same ones who are complaining about funding for medicaid, "Obamacare", contraception, food stamps, unemployment, etc.  They are so consumed with making sure these fetuses are born but don't care about what happens to them and their families afterward or making sure they are wanted in the first place.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: naemhni on January 05, 2014, 08:18:24 PM
It seems to me that many of the people who call themselves pro-life are really just pro-birth.  They are the same ones who are complaining about funding for medicaid, "Obamacare", contraception, food stamps, unemployment, etc.  They are so consumed with making sure these fetuses are born but don't care about what happens to them and their families afterward or making sure they are wanted in the first place.

I think it was Barney Frank (although I'm not sure, so don't hold me to that) who said that Republicans seem to believe that life begins at conception and ends at birth.  He's so right.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: LoriPinkAngel on January 05, 2014, 08:33:56 PM
Abortion should not be illegal.  Abortion should be obsolete.  There should be no unwanted pregnancies. Kids should be educated on sex and contraception and no means no.  Contraception should be affordable, available and effective.  There should be genetic testing for people to avoid becoming pregnant if they are at risk for defects that they can't deal with.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: albeto on January 06, 2014, 01:01:57 AM
I think it was Barney Frank (although I'm not sure, so don't hold me to that) who said that Republicans seem to believe that life begins at conception and ends at birth.  He's so right.

At least we know life begins at masturbation (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/17/republican-cites-masturbating-fetuses-to-support-new-abortion-restrictions/).
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: LoriPinkAngel on January 06, 2014, 09:06:35 AM
I think it was Barney Frank (although I'm not sure, so don't hold me to that) who said that Republicans seem to believe that life begins at conception and ends at birth.  He's so right.

At least we know life begins at masturbation (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/17/republican-cites-masturbating-fetuses-to-support-new-abortion-restrictions/).

Quote
If they’re a male baby, they may have their hand between their legs.

So, I suppose this f*cktard is ok with aborting female fetuses...    :o
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: Truth OT on January 06, 2014, 10:56:31 AM
The abortion debate is one that seems to be getting louder and louder in today's society... This is my take... Abortion is wrong, in all cases except if it is endangering the life of the mother. From a religious or secular view I believe that the very Idea that this is still something we debate is rather sick. Am embryo, a fetus is not just a living thing, it is the embodiment of human potential. From the moment it is created it has the potential to be a great person. To think, to create, to love, to be loved. It has the potential to change the world, and taking that away is just sick and frankly a crime against the species as a whole. A human being is the most powerful thing in the known universe and cutting it off before it gets a chance is just not right. Please tell me I am wrong.

An aspiring politian has the potential to be the president of the united states, yet because he or she is not the president they are not entitled to the same benefits and priviledges of the president.

What abortion is is a woman acting on her desire NOT to continue with a pregnancy and in some cases relieving herself of the obligation to dedicate herself to the support of another life for a large portion of her own. With this in mind the moral question many don't ask is should others have the right to say she cannot end her pregnancy except for certain reasons. For those that say she should not have this right the question becomes WHY NOT and what reasons are the exceptions.

This issue has been way oversimplified and reduced to the false dilemma that squarely focuses on the assumed right for the unborn to get a chance to be born all the while ignoring other issues like the quality of life for not only the prospective baby but the mother as well. We should ask the question of WHY yet again as it relates to the issue of the unborn having the priviledge and later the responsibilites of life. No one seems to want to admit this as we tend to want to operate in absolutes as our human brains find comfort in that, but the case can be made that the value of human lives are relative. Yes, this means all lives do NOT hold the same value. Before anyone gets upset at this declaration, I challenge you simply look at the world around you today and historically to see if lives have ever been values equally.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: wheels5894 on January 06, 2014, 11:05:20 AM
Good way of looking at this, Truth! This ought to be a focus on the mother who is taking a huge risk carrying a pregnancy and, if not aborted, she will be tied up for 20 years looking after the child - at least! So, here's another question for the 'pro-life' people.

If it is right that a woman is to be legally banned from seeking and abortion, and hence have 20 years worth or expense and life disruption, ought not the same law prescribe that the father should be made to come up with the cash to support the mother and child, with the State picking up the bill or supplementing it if the father can't provide enough cash? We would be talking about sufficient cash to not only live but to be able to afford holidays and help with the child so that the mother was able to pursue education with a view to getting a reasonable job? It is not right to put burdens on the woman but the State and the father get off free.

Would you support that, Mhaberling?
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: jaimehlers on January 06, 2014, 11:25:01 AM
I did not invent the term, nor have I explicitly approved it or disapproved of it.  I consider myself pro-life because my views on abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, assisted suicide, embryonic stem cell research, and IVF are all consistent with positions of the pro-life movement.
This is disingenuous, Mooby.  The "pro-life" movement concerns itself specifically with abortion, not with any of those other things.  Indeed, I think many people opposed to abortion (and who thus call themselves pro-life) are not opposed to, say, capital punishment.  You may indeed be consistently pro-life on all of those issues - I'm not in a position to judge - but that does not mean that the pro-life movement as a whole is.  The likelihood, in fact, is that it is not, for two reasons; first, the pro-life movement was formed in response to abortions being legalized, and thus whether someone is part of the anti-abortion "pro-life" movement has no bearing on their positions in other issues, and second, a person is less likely to be a member of multiple groups than they are to be a member of a single group.

Quote from: Mooby
Thank you for calling me dishonest, though.  I find that ad hominems are the best way to show confidence in my views, and clearly you agree.
I think you need to review exactly what an ad hominem (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html) is before you start leveling accusations such as this.  An ad hominem is when someone rejects an argument because of some irrelevant fact or point about the person making the argument.  Your intellectual honesty, or lack thereof, is of very great relevance here; indeed, if you are not being honest, it calls your whole argument into question.  So while Azdgari might be wrong about you being dishonest, I think you have to admit that it's relevant and thus not an ad hominem.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: Wasserbuffel on January 06, 2014, 12:36:49 PM
Since Godzilla re-opened this topics, I'd like to see him respond to some of the points made. What are your reasons for being pro-life? 

Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: Betelnut on January 07, 2014, 12:38:36 AM
I'm just very pragmatic about the issue of abortion.  I might, just a little bit, actually think that it is "wrong" since, after all, it is the termination of a potential life.  I wish that free birth control and sex education would make it unnecessary or much rarer (as mentioned earlier by others). 

Despite this cognitive dissonance, I would never advocate for it to be illegal and I believe, wholeheartedly, that abortion should be widely available and inexpensive (or free).

The rights of existing humans have precedence over potential/undeveloped human beings.  Period.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: Chronos on January 07, 2014, 05:18:11 AM
The abortion debate is one that seems to be getting louder and louder in today's society... This is my take... Abortion is wrong, in all cases except if it is endangering the life of the mother. From a religious or secular view I believe that the very Idea that this is still something we debate is rather sick. Am embryo, a fetus is not just a living thing, it is the embodiment of human potential. From the moment it is created it has the potential to be a great person. To think, to create, to love, to be loved. It has the potential to change the world, and taking that away is just sick and frankly a crime against the species as a whole. A human being is the most powerful thing in the known universe and cutting it off before it gets a chance is just not right. Please tell me I am wrong.

You are wrong.    But I am not sure why I bother to reply. Maybe it's because I woke up at 3:30am and can't get back to sleep. (I also just realized that this thread started a year ago and I haven't read any of the responses, so remember that.)

You are conflating issues while using an emotional plea for your viewpoint.

A individual lying on the street, homeless, nearly freezing to death, is an embodiment of human potential. In fact, he is a human not just a potential human. You likely wouldn't pay much attention to him, much less fawn over his very existence.

A woman has a right to terminate a pregnancy if she doesn't want one.  Period.  It's her body, her choice.  As a man, if I had something growing inside of me and I didn't want it there, I have the right over my person to ask a doctor to cut it out.   Period.  So does she. I do not view women as second class citizens of earth who are relegated to suffer whatever whimsy men can muster. To force women to do whatever we want just because they are women is not only sexist, it's perverted.

If men could get pregnant, abortion would always be an option. There is no doubt about that.     At all.     Zero.

Furthermore, from a religious/ethical perspective, there is no issue with either on the topic of abortion. In the bible god dashed to pieces the fetuses of countless women, and the bible makes no other bones about the issues of fetuses. It's not even a topic. It's not even a commandment. Yet, some people have turned their obsession over the human fetus into some kind of multiorgasmic sexual fetish that must be satisfied by enslaving women in the bondage of somebody else's fantasies. It's sick, perverted, illogical, stupid and sexist.

Finally, your emotional plea to make every fetus the object of ultimate human desire by attributing to it so many prophetic graces ignores the reality that we would all be better off if Adolph Hitler was never born (the most obvious token example of the 20th century). Just because it's a fetus doesn't mean it's going to make a great human that must be protected at all costs. That's just silly. Almost always the fetish practitioners are of the Christian fundamentalist cult who totally ignore what happens to the little fetuses after they are born. They are ignored when it comes to helping out the mother raise them. The Cult of Christianity further persecutes the mother for giving up her child for adoption, does little if anything to help raise the child, routinely rails against paying any contributions (called taxes) to help feed or educate children (while getting really cranky if it doesn't receive its own tithings) and then impales the grown adult fetuses upon the daggers of the law for just about any possible infraction imaginable and happily spends tens of thousands of dollars per year incarcerating them for decades with little hope of education, vocation or freedom. Please reconcile that with your love of human potential.

Did I mention how people treat animals? Is human potential the only potential for life that we care about? As caretakers of this planet under no responsibility for the way we treat our fellow beings?


From where comes this sick, twisted fetish for fetuses?

Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: Truth OT on January 07, 2014, 11:30:57 AM
Despite this cognitive dissonance, I would never advocate for it to be illegal and I believe, wholeheartedly, that abortion should be widely available and inexpensive (or free).

I see abortion as being an option that is available but that option is not a right in the sense that breathing or being free from oppression are. Since abortion has to be performed by someone else that is presummably not an invested family member of the would be mother, the idea that it should be free is not a good one IMO. The medical professionals that perform the service have the right to be compensated and that means that those that wish to have abortive proceduces bear the brunt of the burden for compensating the individuals that perform the services. As a society we know that there will always be those that aren't in positions to take care of themselves so it would behoove us all to make provisions to assist those that find themselves in that segment of society.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: Mooby on January 07, 2014, 11:49:44 AM
This is disingenuous, Mooby.  The "pro-life" movement concerns itself specifically with abortion, not with any of those other things.
Excuse me? (http://www.usccb.org/about/pro-life-activities/issues.cfm)

Quote
Your intellectual honesty, or lack thereof, is of very great relevance here; indeed, if you are not being honest, it calls your whole argument into question.
What you're describing is a specific type of ad hominem fallacy: tu quoque. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem_tu_quoque)  So yes, it is indeed an ad hominem fallacy.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: screwtape on January 07, 2014, 12:13:43 PM
This is disingenuous, Mooby.  The "pro-life" movement concerns itself specifically with abortion, not with any of those other things.

No, he's right. 

To expand on that, there is a very specific collection of, more or less, coherent perspectives that are considered Pro-Life and they do include anti-abortion, IVF, capital punishment, etc.  These are also generally rooted in catholic doctrine and endorsed by the RCC, though I am sure you would find some non-catholics among the movement. 

However, it is a little like the way people abuse the word "theory".  There are other anti-abortion folks who also call themselves "pro-life" who do not subscribe to all of the above views, as you pointed out.  In my experience (not rooted in data) these tend to be the majority of the pro-lifers.  Possibly because of that, when people say "pro-life", it is generally implied to be the latter, and not the former.  Moob, who is catholic unless I am mistaken, means the former.


Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: Traveler on January 07, 2014, 12:39:23 PM
This is disingenuous, Mooby.  The "pro-life" movement concerns itself specifically with abortion, not with any of those other things.

No, he's right. 

To expand on that, there is a very specific collection of, more or less, coherent perspectives that are considered Pro-Life and they do include anti-abortion, IVF, capital punishment, etc.  These are also generally rooted in catholic doctrine and endorsed by the RCC, though I am sure you would find some non-catholics among the movement. 

However, it is a little like the way people abuse the word "theory".  There are other anti-abortion folks who also call themselves "pro-life" who do not subscribe to all of the above views, as you pointed out.  In my experience (not rooted in data) these tend to be the majority of the pro-lifers.  Possibly because of that, when people say "pro-life", it is generally implied to be the latter, and not the former.  Moob, who is catholic unless I am mistaken, means the former.

I didn't know that. I've only ever heard of pro-life as a reference to anti-abortion, and I would suggest that that is the more common usage of the term.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: jaimehlers on January 07, 2014, 02:03:31 PM
Excuse me? (http://www.usccb.org/about/pro-life-activities/issues.cfm)
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is only one of a number of organizations that are opposed to abortion.  They may be pro-life in most, if not all, respects, but can you say the same about every other anti-abortion group out there?  You shouldn't imply or state that because a group calls itself pro-life, that they actually are pro-life in every respect.  That is what I refer to by disingenuousness - not noticing or ignoring other "pro-life" groups (which aren't pro-life in most situations), while pointing to a few that are.

Quote from: Mooby
What you're describing is a specific type of ad hominem fallacy: tu quoque. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem_tu_quoque)  So yes, it is indeed an ad hominem fallacy.
I disagree.  The anti-abortion movement as a whole calls itself pro-life, even though it's specifically about abortions.  They intentionally chose to call themselves pro-life for propaganda purposes.  I don't doubt that there are organizations which better deserve the moniker, but the fact of the matter is that by associating with these other groups, they're giving them cover.  Someone, like, say, you, can point to a specific pro-life group like the USCCB, giving the implication that the entire pro-life movement is like that, when in fact it isn't.  That's dishonest, which I think is what Azdgari was referring to.

It isn't a tu quoque anyway, because Azdgari is referring to the fact that anti-abortion groups have focused the idea of being pro-life specifically on being opposed to abortion, as a form of propaganda so they can refer to their opponents as pro-death or anti-life.  You get the same kind of propaganda with anti-euthanasia groups - they aren't really arguing the merits of their actual position, they're using a variant of the "bloody shirt" tactic.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: jaimehlers on January 07, 2014, 02:07:09 PM
However, it is a little like the way people abuse the word "theory".  There are other anti-abortion folks who also call themselves "pro-life" who do not subscribe to all of the above views, as you pointed out.  In my experience (not rooted in data) these tend to be the majority of the pro-lifers.  Possibly because of that, when people say "pro-life", it is generally implied to be the latter, and not the former.  Moob, who is catholic unless I am mistaken, means the former.
This actually underscores the point I'm trying to make.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: screwtape on January 07, 2014, 03:37:17 PM
This actually underscores the point I'm trying to make.

Which point are you trying to make?  If it is that he is disingenuous, I disagree.  He clarified what he meant in some detail. 
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,24328.msg593251.html#msg593251

He agreed this did not necessarily include everyone who called themselves "pro-life", but that there was a range of issues covered.  He also left room for discrepancy, since he said he was not the "lord of labels". 

I agree, Mooby can be obnoxious and slippery, but let's not get carried away.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: Mooby on January 07, 2014, 05:29:34 PM
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is only one of a number of organizations that are opposed to abortion.  They may be pro-life in most, if not all, respects, but can you say the same about every other anti-abortion group out there?  You shouldn't imply or state that because a group calls itself pro-life, that they actually are pro-life in every respect.  That is what I refer to by disingenuousness - not noticing or ignoring other "pro-life" groups (which aren't pro-life in most situations), while pointing to a few that are.
I'm pretty sure that I mentioned earlier that there are people who identify as "pro-life" but do not apply it to all life issues.  I also never claimed that every organization has the same goals.  I am most familiar with the Catholic pro-life stance, which is why I cited the US Conference of Catholic Bishops.

If you think that abortion is the only face of the pro-life movement, then you must not be paying attention.  The pro-life movement has spoken up on several life issues over the past several years.  When embryonic stem cell research and cloning became realities, pro-lifers spoke up.  During the Terry Schiavo controversy, pro-life activists (along with disability rights activists) spoke up.  When Oregon legalized physician-assisted suicide, the Oregon pro-life groups responded. (https://ortl.org/assisted-suicide.html)  Yes, abortion is certainly the biggest issue pro-life movements face due to its scope (http://www.numberofabortions.com/), but it's not the only issue the movements address.

Quote
Someone, like, say, you, can point to a specific pro-life group like the USCCB, giving the implication that the entire pro-life movement is like that, when in fact it isn't.  That's dishonest,
I explicitly stated the entire pro-life movement wasn't like that, so perhaps you should read my posts before calling them dishonest.

I pointed to the USCCB because it was the first American group to speak out on pro-life issues, and the most influential.  Evangelical Protestant churches didn't really join the movement until the 1980s and 1990s; before then, all of the major organizations were Catholic.  Today, the largest pro-life group in the US is National Right To Life (https://www.nrlc.org/), which covers issues such as euthanasia, assisted suicide, stem cell research, cloning, health care, end of life care, and infanticide.  The biggest difference between its platform and the USCCB is it does not have an official stance on capital punishment, which the USCCB does.

In other words, this claim of yours that American pro-life groups only focus on abortion is a load of garbage, as the original group and the largest group in America both have very similar platforms that encompass several different issues.  Sure, you could probably go out and find a handful of groups that only focus on abortions, but as I openly admitted some people who use the label are not explicitly pro-life on every issue, that would not be particularly damning.  My point is that the pro-life movement in general is an ethical philosophy spanning multiple different issues, and I think that's pretty well borne out by the fact that the major organizations apply this ethical philosophy to multiple issues.[1]

Quote
anti-abortion groups have focused the idea of being pro-life specifically on being opposed to abortion, as a form of propaganda so they can refer to their opponents as pro-death or anti-life.
Anti-abortion and pro-abortion (or pro-abortion rights, if you prefer) are fine terms for delineating specific views on specific laws.  I like "pro-life" because it has a broader scope than "anti-abortion" and more accurately describes my position.

I think "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are actually pretty good descriptors of each side's position on the issue, which IMO is important because the two sides are arguing two fundamentally different things.  "Anti-choice" and "anti-life" are rather poor descriptors, by contrast, because the pro-abortion camp is not motivated against life and the anti-abortion camp is not motivated against choice.
 1. After writing this paragraph, I googled my own state's pro-life organization.  It covers roughly the same issues as the NRLC.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: jaimehlers on January 07, 2014, 05:46:33 PM
Which point are you trying to make?  If it is that he is disingenuous, I disagree.  He clarified what he meant in some detail. 
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,24328.msg593251.html#msg593251
The point I was trying to make was that there are groups which hide under the umbrella of "pro-life", but are narrowly focused, or else claim to have a broad focus (such as in their mission statement), but their emphasis is narrow.

Quote from: screwtape
He agreed this did not necessarily include everyone who called themselves "pro-life", but that there was a range of issues covered.  He also left room for discrepancy, since he said he was not the "lord of labels". 

I agree, Mooby can be obnoxious and slippery, but let's not get carried away.
I still think he is at least being somewhat disingenuous; he's trying to present as little as he can on this subject and only adds to it when he's pressed, which gives an appearance of disingenuousness (pretending that one knows less about a subject than one actually does, and thus being less than candid).  Maybe he isn't actually trying to be disingenuous, but in that case he might want to consider modifying his approach and presentation.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: jaimehlers on January 07, 2014, 06:23:28 PM
I'm pretty sure that I mentioned earlier that there are people who identify as "pro-life" but do not apply it to all life issues.  I also never claimed that every organization has the same goals.  I am most familiar with the Catholic pro-life stance, which is why I cited the US Conference of Catholic Bishops.
I went back several posts to get some additional context, and so I caught that.  However, your original response to me on this, which was two words and a link to the USCCB website, was not very helpful.  In fact, it added to the appearance of being disingenuous.

Quote from: Mooby
If you think that abortion is the only face of the pro-life movement, then you must not be paying attention.  The pro-life movement has spoken up on several life issues over the past several years.  When embryonic stem cell research and cloning became realities, pro-lifers spoke up.  During the Terry Schiavo controversy, pro-life activists (along with disability rights activists) spoke up.  When Oregon legalized physician-assisted suicide, the Oregon pro-life groups responded. (https://ortl.org/assisted-suicide.html)  Yes, abortion is certainly the biggest issue pro-life movements face due to its scope (http://www.numberofabortions.com/), but it's not the only issue the movements address.
Granted, but that's tangential to the point I'm trying to get at.  Are you willing to acknowledge the point that referring to a movement as pro-life (or pro-choice, for that matter) lends itself to calling opponents of that movement anti-life (or anti-choice)?  In other words, it has a strong propaganda effect, which has nothing to do with the actual issues.  More to the point, it doesn't really assist in understanding things either.  You may define "pro-life" as being anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia, anti-stem cell research, and so on, but those are all things you are against.  They don't define what pro-life actually means to you - or to anyone else, for that matter.

Quote from: Mooby
I explicitly stated the entire pro-life movement wasn't like that, so perhaps you should read my posts before calling them dishonest.
I can't help it if your posts give the appearance of dishonesty or disingenuousness to me.  Maybe you didn't mean it that way, but you're the one writing the posts.  If people are taking it a way other than how you intended it, then perhaps you might want to spend some time thinking about why that might be instead of merely dismissing it as my (or Azdgari's) problem.

Quote from: Mooby
In other words, this claim of yours that American pro-life groups only focus on abortion is a load of garbage
Now who needs to go back and read posts?  I said that the anti-abortion movement in America calls itself pro-life, even though it's specifically about abortions.  Even you admitted that abortion was the biggest issue facing pro-life groups.  Perhaps you should spend some time considering just how much - or how little - emphasis those groups actually give to anything besides abortions, instead of simply reading their mission statements.  For example, check how much funding those groups put towards abortion stuff, as opposed to the other issues you mentioned.

Quote from: Mooby
I like "pro-life" because it has a broader scope than "anti-abortion" and more accurately describes my position.
This may come as a shock to you, but I consider myself pro-life as well as being pro-choice - and more to the point, not pro-abortion.  That's because life isn't really about making sure something that's alive stays alive as long as possible, whatever they think about it, or making sure that if a woman gets pregnant, that she should give birth whatever she thinks about it.

Is it ethical to try to keep someone who's lived a long life alive when their body starts to fail, whatever they want?  Is it ethical to make a woman go through the trauma of childbirth just because she got pregnant, when she was using birth control?  You might have different answers than I do on those questions, but one thing's for sure - it isn't ethical to try to force others to abide by what you want, or to coerce them into doing it (say, through the law).

Quote from: Mooby
I think "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are actually pretty good descriptors of each side's position on the issue, which IMO is important because the two sides are arguing two fundamentally different things.  "Anti-choice" and "anti-life" are rather poor descriptors, by contrast, because the pro-abortion camp is not motivated against life and the anti-abortion camp is not motivated against choice.
That last sentence of yours is exactly why calling one side pro-choice and the other pro-life doesn't really work.  I think you'll find that there's a surprising amount of overlap between the two sides once you get past the true believers.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: Mooby on January 07, 2014, 10:55:00 PM
I went back several posts to get some additional context, and so I caught that.  However, your original response to me on this, which was two words and a link to the USCCB website, was not very helpful.  In fact, it added to the appearance of being disingenuous.
You quite confidently told me I was disingenuous and proceeded to tell me wrong information about what I believe without citing anything to back it up before I gave you that response.  "Excuse me?" was the most polite way I could think of to express my reaction to such a disrespectful and arrogant reply.

I did not think to repeat my post from before because I had no reason to think that you wouldn't have read it.

Quote
Are you willing to acknowledge the point that referring to a movement as pro-life (or pro-choice, for that matter) lends itself to calling opponents of that movement anti-life (or anti-choice)?
No.  I'm willing to acknowledge that some proponents on each side throw those terms around[1], but I don't see the use of the terms themselves of implying the opposite.

Again, here is my view: "if you want to twist it to assume that those who consistently assume positions on life issues that allow for the killing of a human as "anti-life," that's your problem."  Same goes for pro-choice.

Quote
You may define "pro-life" as being anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia, anti-stem cell research, and so on, but those are all things you are against.
I do not define it that way.  I define it as an ethical philosophy that places the intrinsic value of a human life as supreme.

Quote
Even you admitted that abortion was the biggest issue facing pro-life groups.  Perhaps you should spend some time considering just how much - or how little - emphasis those groups actually give to anything besides abortions, instead of simply reading their mission statements.  For example, check how much funding those groups put towards abortion stuff, as opposed to the other issues you mentioned.
Abortion is the one issue that has been constant for 40+ years and has resulted in millions of deaths.  Other issues tend to come up when they're prominent.  Embryonic stem cell research opposition arose with said research, and succeeded in barring funding for new stem cell lines.  Euthanasia is still outlawed in the US, and assisted suicide has not spread nationwide.  Capital punishment is only opposed by some pro-life groups, and is much smaller in scope than abortion (1359 U.S. executions since 1976 (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf) vs. 3126 U.S. abortions since this morning (http://www.numberofabortions.com/).)

So yes, they spend the majority of their resources facing the biggest issue.

Quote
This may come as a shock to you, but I consider myself pro-life as well as being pro-choice - and more to the point, not pro-abortion.
If we're going to use the terms more casually, then I can give the same response.

Quote
Is it ethical to try to keep someone who's lived a long life alive when their body starts to fail, whatever they want?
No, I don't think it is.

Quote
Is it ethical to make a woman go through the trauma of childbirth just because she got pregnant, when she was using birth control?
I don't see how the birth control part is relevant.  And no, I don't think it is, but I think it's even less ethical to intentionally kill a human.

Quote
You might have different answers than I do on those questions, but one thing's for sure - it isn't ethical to try to force others to abide by what you want, or to coerce them into doing it (say, through the law).
Are you extending this to things like seat belt laws and speed limits?  I find your position a bit vague here.

Quote
That last sentence of yours is exactly why calling one side pro-choice and the other pro-life doesn't really work.  I think you'll find that there's a surprising amount of overlap between the two sides once you get past the true believers.
And what is this overlap?
 1. with anti-choice being about 3.7 times more popular than anti-life, if Google search results are to be believed
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: jaimehlers on January 08, 2014, 12:19:02 AM
You quite confidently told me I was disingenuous and proceeded to tell me wrong information about what I believe without citing anything to back it up before I gave you that response.  "Excuse me?" was the most polite way I could think of to express my reaction to such a disrespectful and arrogant reply.
I didn't say a word about what you believe or don't believe (except to say that I wasn't in a position to judge whether you were consistently pro-life on those issues you mentioned).  I called you disingenuous because you said, "I did not invent the term, nor have I explicitly approved it or disapproved of it", and then went on to say how you considered yourself pro-life for various reasons - suggesting that you did indeed approve of the term as it applied to you, and by extension, others who are pro-life.

In short, you put your foot in it, got upset because I called you on it, and compounded your error by making a bad assumption about what I was talking about in the first place.

Quote from: Mooby
I did not think to repeat my post from before because I had no reason to think that you wouldn't have read it.
My last post in this thread previous to that was almost a year ago.   I responded to that specific response - I don't always go back and read the stuff before it.

Quote from: Mooby
No.  I'm willing to acknowledge that some proponents on each side throw those terms around[1], but I don't see the use of the terms themselves of implying the opposite.
 1. with anti-choice being about 3.7 times more popular than anti-life, if Google search results are to be believed
You might consider that it's very easy to springboard from "anti-life" to "murderer" and other such choice terms.  Also, you need to read what I wrote a bit more carefully.  I said that those terms lend themselves to name-calling, which they do.  I'll certainly grant that not everyone engages in such name-calling, though, but it does happen.  However, that might just be human nature at work.

Quote from: Mooby
Again, here is my view: "if you want to twist it to assume that those who consistently assume positions on life issues that allow for the killing of a human as "anti-life," that's your problem."  Same goes for pro-choice.
That's phrased somewhat awkwardly.

Quote from: Mooby
I do not define it that way.  I define it as an ethical philosophy that places the intrinsic value of a human life as supreme.
Which is what I was looking for.  You can't define what someone is very well merely by stating what they are not.  But here's a serious question for you, then.  If the intrinsic value of a human life is supreme, how do you determine relative value?  For example, most adults instinctively try to protect children, even at the risk (or cost) of their own life.  How would you work that into your philosophy?

Quote from: Mooby
Abortion is the one issue that has been constant for 40+ years and has resulted in millions of deaths.  Other issues tend to come up when they're prominent.  Embryonic stem cell research opposition arose with said research, and succeeded in barring funding for new stem cell lines.  Euthanasia is still outlawed in the US, and assisted suicide has not spread nationwide.  Capital punishment is only opposed by some pro-life groups, and is much smaller in scope than abortion (1359 U.S. executions since 1976 (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf) vs. 3126 U.S. abortions since this morning (http://www.numberofabortions.com/).)
That begs the question - what exactly are you considering an abortion?

In any case, what about other things which result in human deaths, such as smoking, to name one?  According to the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/tables/health/attrdeaths/), the number of Americans who die as a result of smoking is up to 443,000 per year (which doesn't touch on health costs, both to the smoker and to others).  That may not be as high as the number of abortions in the USA, but it's still a pretty substantial number.  And it's not something I hear pro-life groups talk about, let alone contribute money to.

Quote from: Mooby
So yes, they spend the majority of their resources facing the biggest issue.
I hope you can recognize that this pretty well links abortion and pro-life in most people's minds.  In short, while pro-life groups may care about other issues, their primary focus is on abortion, and I suspect the perception is that it's what they really care about - that they give lip service to other pro-life issues, but they recognize that abortion is what gets them their donations and whatnot.

Quote from: Mooby
If we're going to use the terms more casually, then I can give the same response.
Can you elaborate?  Because you pretty clearly indicated that you were heavily pro-life...so I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this now.

Quote from: Mooby
No, I don't think it is.
What about someone who has a fatal illness, or cancer, and who doesn't want to be made to stay alive just for the sake of staying alive?

Quote from: Mooby
I don't see how the birth control part is relevant.  And no, I don't think it is, but I think it's even less ethical to intentionally kill a human.
Why do you say the fact that she was using birth control is not relevant?  And, if a woman gets pregnant, it's unethical for her to seek to end the pregnancy no matter what?  If she used birth control, if she was raped, if there's a good chance of her dying as a result?  None of those change the ethical equation?

Quote from: Mooby
Are you extending this to things like seat belt laws and speed limits?  I find your position a bit vague here.
I left that open intentionally to see how you would respond.  I'm a little disappointed that you'd stretch it that far.  But I'll specify.  I was referring to forcing or coercing people into abiding by a group's ethical beliefs, say in abortion, or stem cell research, or other things along those lines.  For example, if someone wants to donate gametes to a scientific organization with the understanding that they'll be used to further stem cell research, I'd consider it highly unethical for a group to try to outlaw or forbid it because they disagreed with the practice.

Quote from: Mooby
And what is this overlap?
Do I really have to spell this out for you?  Pro-choice and pro-life mean different things to different people, so you can have someone who considers themselves pro-choice but is basically against abortion, or who considers themselves pro-life but isn't willing to try to force others to abide by their beliefs.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: screwtape on January 08, 2014, 11:03:01 AM
I like "pro-life" because it has a broader scope than "anti-abortion" and more accurately describes my position.

as an aside, and just to satisfy my curiosity, does that me you are also against IVF and contraception?

Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: screwtape on January 08, 2014, 11:07:07 AM
The point I was trying to make was that there are groups which hide under the umbrella of "pro-life", but are narrowly focused, or else claim to have a broad focus (such as in their mission statement), but their emphasis is narrow.

Okay.  Not trying to speak for anyone else, but I think you, I and the Moob all at least mostly agree this is the case. At least, it seems so to me.

I still think he is at least being somewhat disingenuous;...

Well, I suppose that is your prerogative.  If I have not changed your view on it thus far, I'll leave it alone.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: Mooby on January 08, 2014, 06:52:45 PM
I called you disingenuous because you said, "I did not invent the term, nor have I explicitly approved it or disapproved of it", and then went on to say how you considered yourself pro-life for various reasons - suggesting that you did indeed approve of the term as it applied to you, and by extension, others who are pro-life.
I also gave examples above of people who identify as atheists yet disapproves the term "atheist" and a feminist who identifies as a feminist yet disapproves of the term "feminism."  It's odd that you'd catch the thing I posted earlier yet miss the part I posted later.

I have no formal position on the word.  None.  As I've said earlier in this thread, the term is neutral to me.  I neither approve of it nor disapprove of it.  I do think it does a fair[1] job of summing up the general position of the pro-life crowd on life issues, but otherwise I don't really care all that much.  Not everything in the word perturbs me, and the word "pro-life" does not.

Quote
You might consider that it's very easy to springboard from "anti-life" to "murderer" and other such choice terms.  Also, you need to read what I wrote a bit more carefully.  I said that those terms lend themselves to name-calling, which they do.  I'll certainly grant that not everyone engages in such name-calling, though, but it does happen.  However, that might just be human nature at work.
People are going to call names regardless of what terms we use.  "Murderer" will be used regardless of what those against abortion call themselves.  Are "anti-life" and "anti-choice" such huge problems that we need to abandon the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice?"  I don't know.  Probably not.  Do I particularly care, and/or does it affect my life in any significant way?  Not really.

Quote
Quote from: Mooby
Again, here is my view: "if you want to twist it to assume that those who consistently assume positions on life issues that allow for the killing of a human as "anti-life," that's your problem."  Same goes for pro-choice.
That's phrased somewhat awkwardly.
 1. As in "not excellent, not poor, but fair."
My bad.  In other words, I don't run around calling people anti-life.  If you hold a position contrary to pro-life ideals, and because of this you wish to infer that you're "anti-life," be my guest.  If someone else calls you anti-life, feel free to punch them or whatever won't get you arrested.

Quote
Which is what I was looking for.  You can't define what someone is very well merely by stating what they are not.  But here's a serious question for you, then.  If the intrinsic value of a human life is supreme, how do you determine relative value?  For example, most adults instinctively try to protect children, even at the risk (or cost) of their own life.  How would you work that into your philosophy?
Excellent question.  The basic tenet of the philosophy is that human life has an intrinsic value that supersedes all other values.  So regardless of how much money you're paid, it's always wrong to kill someone, for example.

Because of this, the conflicts we address are generally between the potential death of one life vs. another.  Obviously we could go on for pages discussing the nitty gritty details, but in general we err on the side of protecting the more innocent party.  For instance, if your life is being threatened by someone else, it is ok to use self-defense that may result in the aggressor's death because you are the more innocent party.  Also, we tend to look more to positive action vs. passive inaction.  For instance, a mother throwing her child in front of a car is far more culpable than a mother who fails to be a hero by diving in front of a car to save her child.

Quote
That begs the question - what exactly are you considering an abortion?
Any induced termination of a human from conception until delivery.

Quote
In any case, what about other things which result in human deaths, such as smoking, to name one?  According to the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/tables/health/attrdeaths/), the number of Americans who die as a result of smoking is up to 443,000 per year (which doesn't touch on health costs, both to the smoker and to others).  That may not be as high as the number of abortions in the USA, but it's still a pretty substantial number.  And it's not something I hear pro-life groups talk about, let alone contribute money to.
Smoking is a risk factor for all sorts of things that can lead to death, but it is not a form of suicide.  People generally don't smoke because they want to kill themselves, smoking generally takes many years to cause death, smoking itself generally doesn't cause death but rather leads to smoking-related health conditions, and not everyone who smokes will die from their smoking.

In other words, smoking is a huge health problem and should be addressed, but it doesn't really fall under the mantle of pro-life.  We're focused more on the things that are intentional, direct affronts to human life.

Quote
Can you elaborate?  Because you pretty clearly indicated that you were heavily pro-life...so I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this now.
If you're for legalized abortion but can also be pro-life in the sense you value life, then I can be against legalized abortion but pro-choice in the sense that I still want to provide plenty of options.  There are many choices that can be made that limit abortion or eliminate it altogether, and I'm all for having as many options as possible.  Just not the option of abortion.

Quote
What about someone who has a fatal illness, or cancer, and who doesn't want to be made to stay alive just for the sake of staying alive?
Same answer.

Quote
Why do you say the fact that she was using birth control is not relevant?  And, if a woman gets pregnant, it's unethical for her to seek to end the pregnancy no matter what?  If she used birth control, if she was raped, if there's a good chance of her dying as a result?  None of those change the ethical equation?
Birth control certainly does not.  Making a rule that a woman who used birth control can get an elective abortion over those who did not suggests that it's the latter woman's fault she has an unplanned pregnancy, that the latter woman deserves her pregnancy for not taking the proper steps in advance.  It's thinly veiled slut shaming.

I realize rape is contentious, but it still doesn't change the equation for me.  Rape is a terrible, terrible thing, but for me it comes down to the intrinsic value of human life overriding the terribleness of the rape.

Risk to health is a sticky one, because here you have risk of death by passive means vs. an intentional killing.  I'd say the latter is worse but then again I can't ask everyone to be a hero.  So I'm going to weasel out and say that after exhausting all other options (and it's very rare that some other option isn't at least available to try), it might be ok.  Preferably killing via double effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_effect) if it's at all possible.

Quote
I left that open intentionally to see how you would respond.  I'm a little disappointed that you'd stretch it that far.
Then you shouldn't have left it that open.  I prefer couches to love seats; if you give me room to stretch out, I'm going to stretch.

Quote
I was referring to forcing or coercing people into abiding by a group's ethical beliefs, say in abortion, or stem cell research, or other things along those lines.
That's done all the time, though.  Laws forbidding stealing coerce people who don't believe in personal property to abide by the majority's ethical beliefs.  Laws forcing a group or government to recognize a same sex marriage impose an ethical belief on that group/government.  And so on.

I'd say it's not my (or the government's) business in most cases where the effect is limited to those making the decision.  But on an issue centering around whether one human is allowed to kill another, I think it perfectly within the rights of the government to protect the latter person from being killed.

Quote
For example, if someone wants to donate gametes to a scientific organization with the understanding that they'll be used to further stem cell research, I'd consider it highly unethical for a group to try to outlaw or forbid it because they disagreed with the practice.
Donating gametes just concerns you, so I'm fine with it.

as an aside, and just to satisfy my curiosity, does that me you are also against IVF and contraception?
Yes, though I'm against IVF as a life issue and contraception on religious grounds.  So I think IVF shouldn't be available but I think that contraception should be.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: Ataraxia on January 08, 2014, 07:17:56 PM
I take it that a miscarriage caused by the nature that god supposedly created is wrong too then?
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: Mooby on January 08, 2014, 08:41:29 PM
A miscarriage is a natural death, so no.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: jaimehlers on January 08, 2014, 09:25:40 PM
I also gave examples above of people who identify as atheists yet disapproves the term "atheist" and a feminist who identifies as a feminist yet disapproves of the term "feminism."  It's odd that you'd catch the thing I posted earlier yet miss the part I posted later.
Have you noticed the key difference between them and you yet?  They disapprove.  You don't.  Indeed, you've specifically said that you neither approve nor disapprove of it...which means, what, exactly?  That you're apathetic?  That you don't think about it?  That you like it and dislike it at the same time?

Quote from: Mooby
I have no formal position on the word.  None.  As I've said earlier in this thread, the term is neutral to me.  I neither approve of it nor disapprove of it.  I do think it does a fair[1] job of summing up the general position of the pro-life crowd on life issues, but otherwise I don't really care all that much.  Not everything in the word perturbs me, and the word "pro-life" does not.
 1. As in "not excellent, not poor, but fair."
The above reminds me of the Neutral Planet from Futurama more than anything.  You're being very careful not to say anything meaningful except that you think it's a fair descriptive term, which doesn't exactly say that much.  More to the point, it contributes to that appearance of disingenuousness - as in, lacking candor and/or sincerity - that I keep complaining about.  You say a lot of words, but you don't really tell anyone anything useful by saying them.

Quote from: Mooby
People are going to call names regardless of what terms we use.  "Murderer" will be used regardless of what those against abortion call themselves.  Are "anti-life" and "anti-choice" such huge problems that we need to abandon the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice?"  I don't know.  Probably not.  Do I particularly care, and/or does it affect my life in any significant way?  Not really.
Then maybe you can enlighten me on something.  If you don't particularly care about things like this, then why are you talking about it?

Quote from: Mooby
My bad.  In other words, I don't run around calling people anti-life.  If you hold a position contrary to pro-life ideals, and because of this you wish to infer that you're "anti-life," be my guest.  If someone else calls you anti-life, feel free to punch them or whatever won't get you arrested.
Alright.

Quote from: Mooby
Excellent question.  The basic tenet of the philosophy is that human life has an intrinsic value that supersedes all other values.  So regardless of how much money you're paid, it's always wrong to kill someone, for example.

Because of this, the conflicts we address are generally between the potential death of one life vs. another.  Obviously we could go on for pages discussing the nitty gritty details, but in general we err on the side of protecting the more innocent party.  For instance, if your life is being threatened by someone else, it is ok to use self-defense that may result in the aggressor's death because you are the more innocent party.  Also, we tend to look more to positive action vs. passive inaction.  For instance, a mother throwing her child in front of a car is far more culpable than a mother who fails to be a hero by diving in front of a car to save her child.
Seems to me that in the former case, the mother is committing murder, whereas in the latter, the mother is simply not acting.  Is it correct to say that you would find a mother who died to protect her child by throwing herself in the way of a car even less culpable for causing her own death because she acted to save another?

Also, what about a situation that's less clear-cut?  Like, say, someone who's otherwise innocent risking their life to help save the life of someone who's not.  Let's say you have a convicted murderer, and someone gets beaten to death shielding him from an angry mob?

Quote from: Mooby
Any induced termination of a human from conception until delivery.
Alright.  I don't agree with your definition (given that there's a sizable percentage of miscarriages even today with modern medicine, at least in the first trimester), but that's a bit beside the point.

Quote from: Mooby
Smoking is a risk factor for all sorts of things that can lead to death, but it is not a form of suicide.  People generally don't smoke because they want to kill themselves, smoking generally takes many years to cause death, smoking itself generally doesn't cause death but rather leads to smoking-related health conditions, and not everyone who smokes will die from their smoking.

In other words, smoking is a huge health problem and should be addressed, but it doesn't really fall under the mantle of pro-life.  We're focused more on the things that are intentional, direct affronts to human life.
I can't say I agree; this seems like mincing words to get around inconvenient facts.  When you consider that the average smoker cuts at least a decade off of their lifespan due to those health problems you acknowledged, when you consider the harm that smokers can do to others, including reducing their lifespans - especially to the 'unborn' that pro-life people make their top priority, not to mention young children born to parents who smoke - seems to me that it fits the bill of an intentional, direct affront to human life.  But that's just my opinion.

Quote from: Mooby
If you're for legalized abortion but can also be pro-life in the sense you value life, then I can be against legalized abortion but pro-choice in the sense that I still want to provide plenty of options.  There are many choices that can be made that limit abortion or eliminate it altogether, and I'm all for having as many options as possible.  Just not the option of abortion.
And this is why the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" really aren't all that appropriate.

Quote from: Mooby
Birth control certainly does not.  Making a rule that a woman who used birth control can get an elective abortion over those who did not suggests that it's the latter woman's fault she has an unplanned pregnancy, that the latter woman deserves her pregnancy for not taking the proper steps in advance.  It's thinly veiled slut shaming.
That's why I think abortion needs to be made available regardless of whether she used (or had access to) birth control.  I know you disagree, but consider the flaws in your own position.  It puts the 'fault' for getting pregnant on the woman, even if she didn't want anything to do with it, and makes it effectively impossible for her to do anything but go ahead and carry the pregnancy to term.  We've seen the consequences of this attitude - indeed, they exist even today, in this country, never mind the rest of the world.  Women who are made to feel ashamed for having sex outside of marriage, women who are seen as sluts because of becoming pregnant while unwed, single mothers who are somehow seen as unfit parents because of it.  In other countries, it's far worse; women who are considered - and who often accept being - second class citizens, who are held responsible for being raped and even made to marry their rapists, who's only value is seen in how many children they can produce, usually male children.

While those aren't a direct result of putting the value of a human fetus above that of a grown human woman, they're the natural end result of such an attitude, at least over time.  That's what happens when you automatically value one specific quality over every other.  Doesn't matter whether it's innocence, intelligence, physical strength...whatever.  By valuing one quality more than all others no matter what the circumstances, you necessarily must value all those others less.

Quote from: Mooby
I realize rape is contentious, but it still doesn't change the equation for me.  Rape is a terrible, terrible thing, but for me it comes down to the intrinsic value of human life overriding the terribleness of the rape.
The problem being that this attitude basically treats an entire category of human beings - women - as if the value of their lives is less because they can get pregnant.  That they don't have the right to make decisions about something intimate to them like what they can do if they get pregnant.  That devalues their lives even under the best of circumstances - it treats them as if they don't have the right to make such a decision for themselves.

Quote from: Mooby
Risk to health is a sticky one, because here you have risk of death by passive means vs. an intentional killing.  I'd say the latter is worse but then again I can't ask everyone to be a hero.  So I'm going to weasel out and say that after exhausting all other options (and it's very rare that some other option isn't at least available to try), it might be ok.  Preferably killing via double effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_effect) if it's at all possible.
In my opinion, death is death.  There is no real distinction between 'passive' and 'active' death - you're still just as dead either way.  And sometimes death is necessary, even beneficial.  I'm reminded of a book I read once, actually.  It was about a woman who was dying from cancer, and who was given the power to cure herself of that cancer.  But she decided not to, because she realized that if she put her own life first, then she would stand a very good chance of making other people - including her husband and children - miserable.  She chose to die, but to die a meaningful death when she wanted to, over staying alive simply to stay alive as long as possible.

Quote from: Mooby
Then you shouldn't have left it that open.  I prefer couches to love seats; if you give me room to stretch out, I'm going to stretch.
There is something to be said for exercising discretion.

Quote from: Mooby
That's done all the time, though.  Laws forbidding stealing coerce people who don't believe in personal property to abide by the majority's ethical beliefs.  Laws forcing a group or government to recognize a same sex marriage impose an ethical belief on that group/government.  And so on.
The latter doesn't force anyone to get married to someone else of the same sex, though.  Indeed, all it really does is ensure that same sex couples get the same rights as opposite sex couples already have.  As for the former, what it actually does is keep someone who doesn't respect personal property from imposing that ethical standard on others.  There's no rule saying that they can't give away their own personal property, or accept what others freely give them.  They just can't take something that belongs to someone else because they want to, at least not without risking a much larger penalty.

Quote from: Mooby
I'd say it's not my (or the government's) business in most cases where the effect is limited to those making the decision.  But on an issue centering around whether one human is allowed to kill another, I think it perfectly within the rights of the government to protect the latter person from being killed.
Under most circumstances, I agree.  But abortion is not really one of them, because, to be blunt, I don't really consider a fetus to have the same rights and privileges as even a baby.  I don't approve of abortion, but I'm not willing to impose my disapproval onto others, especially when there's other serious issues that simply don't get talked about in this abortion debate.

Quote from: Mooby
Donating gametes just concerns you, so I'm fine with it.
Even if it's donating gametes for the express purpose of fusing them with other gametes (and thus having a fertilized egg)?  Though I suppose you'd call that in vitro fertilization, even though it really isn't.

A miscarriage is a natural death, so no.
In the sense that there's nothing 'wrong' with it, I agree.  But someone dying in a car accident is hardly a natural death.  Would you consider that wrong?
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: nogodsforme on January 08, 2014, 10:44:12 PM
Most people here have heard my rants on this topic. Briefly, abortion should always be legal and safely available. The alternatives, as evidenced by the many countries that severely restricted abortion, create a world I don't want to live in, and certainly don't want my daughter to live in. This is one situation where we have many, many case studies to examine. See Romania under the pro-natalist communist dictator who outlawed virtually all contraception and abortions.[1]

Similarly we have many Catholic Latin American countries today where it is very hard to get a legal abortion. A year or so ago a young pregnant teen girl died (along with the fetus) in the Dominican Republic because the doctors refused to treat her cancer--  the treatment would have caused an abortion. So we get two deaths instead of one. Nice.

And the rape/incest exceptions just make women who seek abortions because they have voluntary sex, but don't want a baby, into "sluts". Speaking of so-called sluts,[2] any woman who qualifies for that title and who does not want a child should be shown to the front of the abortion clinic line and given one for free. No "slut" should be forced to become a mother. I value children too much to hand babies over to "sluts".
 1. Quoting from the Wikipedia article: Wealthier women were able to obtain contraceptives illegally, or bribed doctors to give diagnoses which made abortion possible. Especially among the less educated and poorer women there were many unwanted pregnancies. These women could only utilize primitive methods of abortion, which led to infection, sterility or even their own death. The mortality among pregnant women became the highest of Europe during the reign of Ceau?escu. While the childbed mortality rate kept declining over the years in neighboring countries, in Romania it increased to more than ten times of that of its neighbors.

Many children born in this period became malnourished, were severely physically handicapped, or ended up in care under grievous conditions, which led to a rise in child mortality.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree_770
 2. ie those loose, promiscuous, drunken, partying, thoughtless, abortion-loving women of the conservative stereotype
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: Mooby on January 08, 2014, 11:22:16 PM
That you're apathetic?  That you don't think about it?
Correct.

Quote
Then maybe you can enlighten me on something.  If you don't particularly care about things like this, then why are you talking about it?
I'm not the one who brought it up.  Other people got bugs up their butts and started calling me disingenuous over it.  But I agree with you that I really shouldn't need to defend the fact that I don't have an opinion on the word.  It's not my problem.

Quote
Seems to me that in the former case, the mother is committing murder, whereas in the latter, the mother is simply not acting.  Is it correct to say that you would find a mother who died to protect her child by throwing herself in the way of a car even less culpable for causing her own death because she acted to save another?
Correct.

Quote
Also, what about a situation that's less clear-cut?  Like, say, someone who's otherwise innocent risking their life to help save the life of someone who's not.  Let's say you have a convicted murderer, and someone gets beaten to death shielding him from an angry mob?
Someone choosing to undergo a high risk of death in the name of heroism is fine by me.  Unless the person getting beaten to death was trying to commit suicide rather than save another.

Quote
I can't say I agree; this seems like mincing words to get around inconvenient facts.  When you consider that the average smoker cuts at least a decade off of their lifespan due to those health problems you acknowledged, when you consider the harm that smokers can do to others, including reducing their lifespans - especially to the 'unborn' that pro-life people make their top priority, not to mention young children born to parents who smoke - seems to me that it fits the bill of an intentional, direct affront to human life.  But that's just my opinion.
Regardless of your opinion, it's just way too nebulous and indirect to qualify as a life issue.  IMO it's much better classed as a health issue.

Quote
While those aren't a direct result of putting the value of a human fetus above that of a grown human woman, they're the natural end result of such an attitude, at least over time.  That's what happens when you automatically value one specific quality over every other.  Doesn't matter whether it's innocence, intelligence, physical strength...whatever.  By valuing one quality more than all others no matter what the circumstances, you necessarily must value all those others less.
That's an argument from consequences, though.

Quote
The problem being that this attitude basically treats an entire category of human beings - women - as if the value of their lives is less because they can get pregnant.  That they don't have the right to make decisions about something intimate to them like what they can do if they get pregnant.  That devalues their lives even under the best of circumstances - it treats them as if they don't have the right to make such a decision for themselves.
I am fine with a woman making whatever decision she wants about herself.  I am against giving her the choice to kill someone else.  If she finds a way to remove her pound of flesh without spilling blood, I'm all for it.

Quote
There is something to be said for exercising discretion.
If you wanted to exercise discretion, then you should have done so when you asked the question.

Quote
The latter doesn't force anyone to get married to someone else of the same sex, though.  Indeed, all it really does is ensure that same sex couples get the same rights as opposite sex couples already have.  As for the former, what it actually does is keep someone who doesn't respect personal property from imposing that ethical standard on others.
Are you shifting your view?  You merely said before that no law should force or coerce others to abide by someone else's code.

Quote
Even if it's donating gametes for the express purpose of fusing them with other gametes (and thus having a fertilized egg)?  Though I suppose you'd call that in vitro fertilization, even though it really isn't.
Yes, I would call it that.  [wiki=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivf]"In vitro fertilisation (IVF) is a process by which an egg is fertilised by sperm outside the body: in vitro."[/wiki]  How is what you described different from that?[1]

Quote
In the sense that there's nothing 'wrong' with it, I agree.  But someone dying in a car accident is hardly a natural death.  Would you consider that wrong?
An accident?  No.
 1. Unless you somehow intended "fusing" to denote artificial insemination?
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: Ataraxia on January 09, 2014, 02:50:02 AM
A miscarriage is a natural death, so no.

So death induced by god is fine. Thank you for highlighting your double standards.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: wheels5894 on January 09, 2014, 09:25:42 AM
A miscarriage is a natural death, so no.

So death induced by god is fine. Thank you for highlighting your double standards.

It much worse than a death caused by god. When popping the soul into the zygote, god already knew it was have to die so why even pop a soul in anyway?

Oh, and while we are at it, how does the theist know when the soul is popped into the zygote/foetus/baby? It would actually seem more likely that the soul is added just before birth to save wasted souls.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: Ataraxia on January 09, 2014, 09:35:30 AM
A miscarriage is a natural death, so no.

So death induced by god is fine. Thank you for highlighting your double standards.

It much worse than a death caused by god. When popping the soul into the zygote, god already knew it was have to die so why even pop a soul in anyway?

Oh, and while we are at it, how does the theist know when the soul is popped into the zygote/foetus/baby? It would actually seem more likely that the soul is added just before birth to save wasted souls.

Good point, and one which brings it similarly into line with the Patrick Henry discussion. That is, is a zygote/foetus/baby classed as alive before a soul is "implanted", or is it the soul that makes it alive?
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: jaimehlers on January 09, 2014, 12:35:28 PM
I'm not the one who brought it up.  Other people got bugs up their butts and started calling me disingenuous over it.  But I agree with you that I really shouldn't need to defend the fact that I don't have an opinion on the word.  It's not my problem.
This doesn't really ring true.  You weren't just defending yourself, you were sniping right back at Azdgari.  Also, something you need to consider is that a person who doesn't take a position on something yet insists on talking about it anyway undercuts their own supposed disinterest.  It suggests that they're only claiming to be disinterested, because if they were disinterested, they wouldn't be talking about it.  That's probably why people have called you disingenuous.

You also didn't answer my question.  If you don't care about something, why talk about it?

Quote
Seems to me that in the former case, the mother is committing murder, whereas in the latter, the mother is simply not acting.  Is it correct to say that you would find a mother who died to protect her child by throwing herself in the way of a car even less culpable for causing her own death because she acted to save another?
Correct.

Quote from: Mooby
Someone choosing to undergo a high risk of death in the name of heroism is fine by me.  Unless the person getting beaten to death was trying to commit suicide rather than save another.
I think you might have missed my point here...

Quote from: Mooby
Regardless of your opinion, it's just way too nebulous and indirect to qualify as a life issue.  IMO it's much better classed as a health issue.
Well, I certainly can't force you or anyone to think of it the way I do.

Quote from: jaimehlers
While those aren't a direct result of putting the value of a human fetus above that of a grown human woman, they're the natural end result of such an attitude, at least over time.  That's what happens when you automatically value one specific quality over every other.  Doesn't matter whether it's innocence, intelligence, physical strength...whatever.  By valuing one quality more than all others no matter what the circumstances, you necessarily must value all those others less.
Quote from: Mooby
That's an argument from consequences, though.
No, an appeal to consequences says that something is true (or false) because of its consequences.  That's not what I did here - I simply stated that if you value one thing more than everything else, that means you must view everything else as being less valuable than it.  It has no bearings on the truth value of doing that.

Quote from: Mooby
I am fine with a woman making whatever decision she wants about herself.  I am against giving her the choice to kill someone else.  If she finds a way to remove her pound of flesh without spilling blood, I'm all for it.
Herein lies the problem.  You view anything from a fertilized egg up as a human being, and that it should be protected no matter what because it's innocent.  More innocent, rather.  I'm not going to criticize that.  However, look at what you wrote here:  "If she finds a way to remove her pound of flesh without spilling blood".  In effect, you're putting the onus on pregnant women - that if they can't find a way to cease being pregnant without having an abortion, then they must carry the pregnancy to term.

Seems to me that the ones with the best chance of figuring out how to do that - or to figure out a better way to keep women from getting pregnant unless they want to be - are the groups which value life above all else, and who put stopping abortions at the top of their priority list.  Right now, what they're doing is essentially trying to stop people from having abortions, which is having limited success.  Even if they managed to make abortions illegal, it wouldn't stop them from happening.  It would simply drive them underground and make them more dangerous.

The best solution in my opinion is not to focus on trying to make abortions illegal, but to eliminate the circumstances that drive people to pursue them.  In short, coming up with a way to prevent fertilization from happening (except in the situations where it's wanted), and to come up with a feasible artificial womb.  At the risk of repeating myself, it seems to me that putting some of that money that currently goes towards trying to make abortions illegal towards dealing with the preconditions that make abortions possible would be a far more effective and elegant solution.

Quote from: Mooby
If you wanted to exercise discretion, then you should have done so when you asked the question.
Don't try to play the fool like this, Mooby.  When you aren't willing to exercise discretion at all - as your earlier comment indicates - trying to chastise someone else for a lack of discretion rings more than a bit falsely.  More to the point, it's always possible to find a way to take advantage of what someone says; the only person who bears responsibility for your lack of discretion is you.

Quote from: Mooby
Are you shifting your view?  You merely said before that no law should force or coerce others to abide by someone else's code.
I specifically brought up abortion, stem cell research, and other things along those lines.  You're the one who generalized that, and now you're trying to accuse me of shifting my views because I don't buy into your generalizations?  That's pure sophistry.  Not to mention being disingenuous - you're trying to act as if I am changing my views, when in fact you're the one who brought up a more general subject and are now acting as if my earlier comment referred to all those other situations.

Quote from: Mooby
Yes, I would call it that.  [wiki=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivf]"In vitro fertilisation (IVF) is a process by which an egg is fertilised by sperm outside the body: in vitro."[/wiki]  How is what you described different from that?[1]
 1. Unless you somehow intended "fusing" to denote artificial insemination?
No, I didn't realize until just then what you meant by IVF,.  But that brings to mind another issue.  When you say you're opposed to IVF, what do you mean?  Seems to me that there's a difference between, say, using gametes to make a fertilized egg for scientific purposes, and using gametes to make a fertilized egg for purposes of artificial insemination.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: Mooby on January 09, 2014, 06:27:48 PM
If you don't care about something, why talk about it?
I care about the pro-life position.  I don't care about the term.

Quote
In effect, you're putting the onus on pregnant women - that if they can't find a way to cease being pregnant without having an abortion, then they must carry the pregnancy to term.
Is not the onus on the pregnant woman to seek an abortion as well?

Quote
The best solution in my opinion is not to focus on trying to make abortions illegal, but to eliminate the circumstances that drive people to pursue them.  In short, coming up with a way to prevent fertilization from happening (except in the situations where it's wanted), and to come up with a feasible artificial womb.  At the risk of repeating myself, it seems to me that putting some of that money that currently goes towards trying to make abortions illegal towards dealing with the preconditions that make abortions possible would be a far more effective and elegant solution.
That skirts the issue of whether abortion itself is wrong.  Imagine if someone subbed words like "rape" in for abortion: "Rapists are going to rape anyways, so instead of fruitlessly working to punish rapists we should focus at least some attention on dealing with the preconditions that make possible."  If something is wrong, then it needs to be dealt with and to sidestep the issue by focusing on discouraging the wrongdoing while not condemning it does not address that.

Quote
the only person who bears responsibility for your lack of discretion is you.
I'm not the one whining about discretion: you are.  If discretion is of value to you, then you should exercise that value with yourself.  Applying your invisible rules to me and then smugly pointing out that I failed to meet your subjective standards as if I should somehow care is just a silly waste of your time.

Quote
I specifically brought up abortion, stem cell research, and other things along those lines.
And then followed with a general claim based on those examples.

Quote
When you say you're opposed to IVF, what do you mean?  Seems to me that there's a difference between, say, using gametes to make a fertilized egg for scientific purposes, and using gametes to make a fertilized egg for purposes of artificial insemination.
I'm opposed to both as they reduce human life to something to be manipulated in a lab.  Destroying that life or putting it in a freezer is more grievous than implanting it.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: nogodsforme on January 10, 2014, 05:46:08 PM
Am I correct in assuming, Mooby, that you find laws that make abortion illegal to be morally right, regardless of the actual consequences? You do realize that in Romania when abortion was illegal, maternal and child mortality (along with real human suffering) actually increased, when compared to neighboring countries that allowed legal abortion and contraception during the same time period?

I can't help but wonder if you would be able to remain steadfast in your views if you were a low-income Romanian man and your 36 year old wife was pregnant for the 14th time in as many years. She is constantly pregnant from the time you first get married, and with a new infant and several toddlers the two of you can barely keep enough food in the house, let alone clothe and properly care for the growing family.

Of those 9, two babies die of neglect and malnutrition, three babies are, in desperation, left in underfunded orphanages. And that still leaves you with four children to try to raise. With an exhausted wife, sick and old before her years--who may even die trying to give birth to her last child.[1]

If she was an average female of that time and place, she might endure two stillbirths and three miscarriages in order to produce 9 living children. Your family life consists of births and deaths and drudgery.

Then, when your daughters become teenagers, they get to embark on their cycle of endless pregnancies, too, maybe starting as young as 14. Whether they want them and are suited to be parents or not. Who cares about their health, or their education? Who needs a career? Women are just walking incubators anyway, destined by their biology to have short lives defined by constant childbearing, maybe cut even shorter by having too many children too close together.

That is what is so galling about the "choose life" anti-abortion, anti-contraception viewpoint-- people who promote this don't really seem to care much about the amount of actual suffering and death. It is like real human lives on earth don't mean anything as long as the possible fantasy future in heaven is secure. 

Every fertilized egg should be preserved, at all costs, even if that practice results in far more real earthly suffering and death on the part of babies, children and their parents. How is this "choosing life"? :P
 1. Or, who may die trying to not be pregnant yet again.....in order of deadliness to the woman, normal pregnancy is more dangerous than legal abortion. An illegal, unsanitary, possibly self-induced abortion is the deadliest of all.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: Azdgari on January 10, 2014, 05:56:18 PM
Nogods, the anti-choicers[1] folks can always say "well, one can always abstain from sex..."

Never mind that this is a remarkably stupid move from a policy-making perspective, as the policy-makers cannot decide for other people to stop having sex.
 1. And those who wish abortion to be illegal really are accurately described as "anti-choice" in that context, as they wish to negate a woman's choice.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: nogodsforme on January 10, 2014, 06:14:23 PM
^^^Yeah, the "just don't have sex" population policies work so well. Especially for teens and young married couples who are at their horniest and most fertile. Thanks, Mother Nature!

A fertile woman only has to have sex once to get pregnant and have a baby every year, if it was at the right time of her cycle. Abstinence would have to be 100%, forever, with no slip-ups at all, to prevent pregnancy. Human beings are remarkably good at making babies--and now we have gotten pretty good at keeping them alive for the most part. That's why there are 7 billion of us here, in spite of everything.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: Azdgari on January 10, 2014, 08:57:26 PM
One could even say that we've evolved to reproduce effectively.  Just like every other organism on Earth.

This is unlikely to get traction with the divine-genesis-of-Humanity crowd, of course.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: LoriPinkAngel on January 11, 2014, 09:38:33 PM
Imagine if someone subbed words like "rape" in for abortion: "Rapists are going to rape anyways, so instead of fruitlessly working to punish rapists we should focus at least some attention on dealing with the preconditions that make possible."  If something is wrong, then it needs to be dealt with and to sidestep the issue by focusing on discouraging the wrongdoing while not condemning it does not address that.


Actually while I am not for letting rapists off the hook I am all for studying the conditions which lead one to become a rapist and figuring out ways to prevent future rapists from developing.


Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: Azdgari on January 11, 2014, 10:19:10 PM
There are a lot of thing you could sub "rape" in for that would sound a lot worse as a result.  All this demonstrates is that we find rape to be wrong.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: jaimehlers on January 11, 2014, 11:02:30 PM
I care about the pro-life position.  I don't care about the term.
You're probably in the minority, then.  I suspect a lot of people like considering themselves pro-life because of how the term makes them feel, rather than because of any principles.

Quote from: Mooby
Is not the onus on the pregnant woman to seek an abortion as well?
If you don't understand the difference between finding a doctor to perform an already-understood medical technique, and inventing a working artificial womb (never mind figuring out how to transfer the fetus to it), then there's little point in continuing to converse with you.  If you do understand it, then do not try to equate the two.

Quote from: Mooby
That skirts the issue of whether abortion itself is wrong.  Imagine if someone subbed words like "rape" in for abortion: "Rapists are going to rape anyways, so instead of fruitlessly working to punish rapists we should focus at least some attention on dealing with the preconditions that make possible."  If something is wrong, then it needs to be dealt with and to sidestep the issue by focusing on discouraging the wrongdoing while not condemning it does not address that.
Actually, given that rape still occurs over 200,000 times per year (http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/frequency-of-sexual-assault) in the USA alone despite having been a felony for decades, it seems that trying to deal with it by punishment isn't actually working all that well.  Declaring that it's morally wrong doesn't seem to have worked out that well either.  And while the incidence of rape has gone down over the past two decades, it has not gone down due to punishing rapists, but by educating people and taking preventative measures before someone has the chance to commit rape.  If it's working with rape, then it seems to me that it would work with abortion as well.

Quote from: Mooby
I'm not the one whining about discretion: you are.  If discretion is of value to you, then you should exercise that value with yourself.  Applying your invisible rules to me and then smugly pointing out that I failed to meet your subjective standards as if I should somehow care is just a silly waste of your time.
No, you're just the one who's trying to act as if you didn't do anything wrong, and trying to act like I'm to blame because I gave you the 'opportunity' to be indiscreet.  Well, that's exactly the same kind of flawed logic that people use to rationalize away committing crimes.  Granted, what you did is nowhere near as serious as that, but the fact remains that you're responsible for your own behavior, and trying to blame me for it simply is not going to fly.

EDIT:  Here, I'll give you a non-crime example.  Let's say that you draped your arm over someone (male or female, it doesn't matter), because they didn't do anything to stop you.  You don't see anything wrong with this because, say, you were raised to think that physical contact with other people is nothing to be worried about.  But they start complaining about it because they didn't appreciate you doing it to them.  See the problem?  I'm complaining because you acted in a manner which I find objectionable, specifically so that you know I find it objectionable and will know not to do it in the future.  Your response is essentially, "well, I did nothing wrong, and I'll do it again if you let me, so if you don't like it, be more careful next time."  Or at least that's how it's coming across.

Now can you see why I'm continuing to complain about it?  The way you're acting says to me that you'll act exactly the same way in the future regardless of what I say now.  That's both rude and offensive of you.

Quote from: Mooby
And then followed with a general claim based on those examples.
And when you tried to apply that general claim to me, as if I should have defended your generalized claim as well as my specific ones, you committed a straw man fallacy.

Quote from: Mooby
I'm opposed to both as they reduce human life to something to be manipulated in a lab.  Destroying that life or putting it in a freezer is more grievous than implanting it.
While I don't agree, the purpose of this particular question was to figure out why you were opposed, and you've covered that.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: xyzzy on January 11, 2014, 11:04:44 PM
I was going to say something about evolution, but Azdgari already did.

So instead I'll just add that it's like hearing a conversation where someone says: "See that thing that you are really, really, really good at? The thing that you were practically designed to do as if your survival depended on it?"

"Well, we don't want you to do that. And, just for grins, we're going to do all that we can to remove the most effective methods, and do all that we can to make it as hard as possible for you not to do that thing that many of you want to do more than anything else".

"Just [don't] do it".
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: Mooby on January 11, 2014, 11:30:29 PM
Am I correct in assuming, Mooby, that you find laws that make abortion illegal to be morally right, regardless of the actual consequences?
No, as I said I'd consider an exception when two life issues conflicted.  Like, if both are likely to die then we may have to save the mother and let the fetus die.

Quote
Every fertilized egg should be preserved, at all costs, even if that practice results in far more real earthly suffering and death on the part of babies, children and their parents. How is this "choosing life"? :P
More than this? (http://www.numberofabortions.com/)



Actually, given that rape still occurs over 200,000 times per year (http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/frequency-of-sexual-assault) in the USA alone despite having been a felony for decades, it seems that trying to deal with it by punishment isn't actually working all that well.  Declaring that it's morally wrong doesn't seem to have worked out that well either.  And while the incidence of rape has gone down over the past two decades, it has not gone down due to punishing rapists, but by educating people and taking preventative measures before someone has the chance to commit rape.  If it's working with rape, then it seems to me that it would work with abortion as well.
So we should legalize rape first, then look for another solution?

Quote
No, you're just the one who's trying to act as if you didn't do anything wrong, and trying to act like I'm to blame because I gave you the 'opportunity' to be indiscreet.
I didn't do anything "wrong."  I think you may be confusing an exaggerated reply to something I found silly with things that actually matter.  Again, if you want to apply Jaimehlers' Rules of Forums to your own posts, go right ahead.  I'm not interested in playing the game where you make a post with the intention of getting me to break an invisible rule that doesn't matter so you can claim I broke an invisible rule that doesn't matter.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: screwtape on January 12, 2014, 03:00:55 PM
The rude Pundit combines two of my favorite topics: abortion and Israel

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2014/01/hey-anti-choicers-by-your-own-logic.html
Quote
You might have heard over the Christian holiday season that the great and noble and never-wrong-no-matter-what nation of Israel decided to pay for all abortions approved by a government medical council (of two doctors and a social worker, one of which must be a woman) for all women between the ages of 20 and 40. They can get those abortions for any reason: health, financial, inconvenience to a marriage.

Toss that around in your noggin for a moment. One of the things that gets anti-choice and/or evangelical nutbags all frothing at the mouth is the idea that a single penny of government money might, in some minuscule way, be used to make abortion more accessible. Right now, a House committee is considering the stupidly-named "No Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Act." You may as well name your committee "The He-Man Woman Haters Club," Rep. Trent Franks. The purpose of the bill is to say that Affordable Care Act funds cannot be used on any insurance plan that includes abortion coverage, even if that coverage has to be purchased as a separate rider and no Obamacare subsidies are used on it, because apparently saving money in one place makes buying abortion coverage easier. (While we're focused on just this aspect of it, it's actually a pretty savage piece of legislation.)

...
continues

sweet merciful jesus, I love the rude pundit.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: jaimehlers on January 12, 2014, 04:30:42 PM
So we should legalize rape first, then look for another solution?
I didn't say that.  In any case, the two situations are not analogous.  As we've discovered, merely outlawing rape doesn't keep people from committing it, just as outlawing alcohol didn't keep people from drinking it, just as outlawing drugs hasn't kept people from using them, and just as abortion being previously illegal didn't keep women from seeking out people who would perform it.  It's clear that merely trying to outlaw something isn't enough to stop people from doing it - you have to do something about the reasons why they want to do it.

So, what are pro-life groups doing to try to eliminate the perceived need for abortions?  I mean, since outlawing abortions wouldn't stop them from happening.

Quote from: Mooby
I didn't do anything "wrong."
No, you did something that offended me, and I'm telling you so you don't do it again.  This is especially important because I've caught you doing things like it several times now, meaning you may not even think about doing it.

Quote from: Mooby
I think you may be confusing an exaggerated reply to something I found silly with things that actually matter.
You don't get to decide whether something you said or did you offended someone.  I can accept that you didn't mean to, but only if you indicate that you understand that it's something you should avoid in the future.

Quote from: Mooby
Again, if you want to apply Jaimehlers' Rules of Forums to your own posts, go right ahead.  I'm not interested in playing the game where you make a post with the intention of getting me to break an invisible rule that doesn't matter so you can claim I broke an invisible rule that doesn't matter.
I'm not playing games here.  When you do something that is offensive, it matters to the person you offended.  You don't get to declare that because it doesn't matter to you, that the other person should just shut up about it.  Which, you might note, is exactly what you're trying to do now.

Indeed, it's not just that you did it this one time.  You did practically the same exact thing not long after - except that instead of merely asking me what else I meant, you assumed I meant other things and then tried to act like I was changing my view when I clarified what I meant, I have to assume that this was deliberate and intentional on your part - an attempt to use my words against me so you could discredit my position without actually challenging it.  I find that offensive, and I'm not willing to tolerate it.

And you did something very similar in this very post by asking me if I thought we should legalize rape before taking preventative measures against it - a leading question where I have to answer very carefully to avoid giving you further openings to take advantage of what I say.  For someone who purportedly doesn't like it when people make posts to try to play "gotcha", you sure don't have a problem doing pretty much the same thing yourself so you can indirectly undercut their argument.

Also, you didn't respond to the following section of my post.

If you don't understand the difference between finding a doctor to perform an already-understood medical technique, and inventing a working artificial womb (never mind figuring out how to transfer the fetus to it), then there's little point in continuing to converse with you.  If you do understand it, then do not try to equate the two.
Do you understand the difference between the two, and that you shouldn't try to equate them?  This is not a rhetorical question.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: Quesi on January 12, 2014, 05:26:45 PM
The rude Pundit combines two of my favorite topics: abortion and Israel

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2014/01/hey-anti-choicers-by-your-own-logic.html
Quote
You might have heard over the Christian holiday season that the great and noble and never-wrong-no-matter-what nation of Israel decided to pay for all abortions approved by a government medical council (of two doctors and a social worker, one of which must be a woman) for all women between the ages of 20 and 40. They can get those abortions for any reason: health, financial, inconvenience to a marriage.

Toss that around in your noggin for a moment. One of the things that gets anti-choice and/or evangelical nutbags all frothing at the mouth is the idea that a single penny of government money might, in some minuscule way, be used to make abortion more accessible. Right now, a House committee is considering the stupidly-named "No Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Act." You may as well name your committee "The He-Man Woman Haters Club," Rep. Trent Franks. The purpose of the bill is to say that Affordable Care Act funds cannot be used on any insurance plan that includes abortion coverage, even if that coverage has to be purchased as a separate rider and no Obamacare subsidies are used on it, because apparently saving money in one place makes buying abortion coverage easier. (While we're focused on just this aspect of it, it's actually a pretty savage piece of legislation.)

...
continues

sweet merciful jesus, I love the rude pundit.

Women between the ages of 20 and 40?  That is just weird. 

I would argue that women who fall outside of those age groups, on either side, might be those who might be most likely to be unable to adequately provide for a child's needs, and most personally at risk.

While there are certainly many women who have given birth in their teens, and many women who have give birth in their 40's, who have been spectacular moms, the reasons for having an abortion in those age groups are really significant.

Teen moms are sometimes (often?) emotionally unprepared to face the demands of parenthood.  They are less likely to be financially capable of providing for a child, both in the short term, and over the course of the child's lifetime, if they drop out of school to raise the child.  And they are more likely to put other life priorities of the needs of their child.  And, are less likely to have access to funds to pay for an abortion.

Older women are more like to have high risk pregnancies, that put their own health at risk.  And they are also exponentially more likely to have a child with special needs, such as down syndrome.  Down syndrome people need a lifetime of support, and may live well into their 40's, 50's or even 60's.  For a woman in her 40's to embark on a journey into parenthood which could require 40 or 50 or 60 years of parental care if often not a wise choice.  For the woman.  For the child.  Or for the society. 

What on earth was the Israeli government thinking when it came up with these age restrictions? 

Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: nogodsforme on January 12, 2014, 05:40:36 PM
The rude Pundit combines two of my favorite topics: abortion and Israel

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2014/01/hey-anti-choicers-by-your-own-logic.html
Quote
You might have heard over the Christian holiday season that the great and noble and never-wrong-no-matter-what nation of Israel decided to pay for all abortions approved by a government medical council (of two doctors and a social worker, one of which must be a woman) for all women between the ages of 20 and 40. They can get those abortions for any reason: health, financial, inconvenience to a marriage.

Toss that around in your noggin for a moment. One of the things that gets anti-choice and/or evangelical nutbags all frothing at the mouth is the idea that a single penny of government money might, in some minuscule way, be used to make abortion more accessible. Right now, a House committee is considering the stupidly-named "No Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Act." You may as well name your committee "The He-Man Woman Haters Club," Rep. Trent Franks. The purpose of the bill is to say that Affordable Care Act funds cannot be used on any insurance plan that includes abortion coverage, even if that coverage has to be purchased as a separate rider and no Obamacare subsidies are used on it, because apparently saving money in one place makes buying abortion coverage easier. (While we're focused on just this aspect of it, it's actually a pretty savage piece of legislation.)

...
continues

sweet merciful jesus, I love the rude pundit.
I wonder if the conservatives who support continued funding to Israel[1] with knee-jerk regularity because god, would consider cutting off funds. Because abortion. I am sure that heads are exploding even as we speak.
 1. Don't get me started. They have about $30,000 per capita yearly income. They have fewer than 7 million people. They are a middle class country with modern infrastructure and national health care. And we still give them about 3 billion a year in foreign aid money, more than any other single country. So they can build up one of the top ten military forces in the world and finance a theocratic police state. Other countries try that sh!t and we invade their a$$es!
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: LoriPinkAngel on January 14, 2014, 05:54:39 PM
Women between the ages of 20 and 40?  That is just weird. 

This is the age group most fit to serve in the Israeli Army... just sayin'
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: screwtape on January 15, 2014, 09:01:04 AM
... and finance a theocratic police state.

I do not think it is theocratic.  But it is apartheid for sure.

Back on topic now...
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: nogodsforme on January 15, 2014, 05:35:46 PM
... and finance a theocratic police state.

I do not think it is theocratic.  But it is apartheid for sure.

Back on topic now...

Okay, I take back the theocratic part--discriminating against non-Jews and having preferential immigration policies, benefits, etc. for Jewish people isn't the same as rule by some form of Judaic law. But yeah, it is undemocratic and very like apartheid.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: screwtape on January 28, 2014, 08:25:14 AM
Ross Douthat - conservative opinionator ar the NYTimes and all around jughead - wrote a piece trying to examine what went wrong with marriage amongst the proletariat.  His solution is for conservatives and liberals to compromise.  Conservatives would have to acknowledge their approach to crime - mass incarceration - sucks donkey balls and they would have to start a jobs program for the poor, a form of wealth redistribution.

The liberals would have to cop to the (alleged) fact that stable marriages prevent poverty and society is falling apart because of lewd and lascivious movies.  And to support marriage they should stand behind a ban on abortions after the first trimester.  He gives some reasons and very little data.   Suffice it to say, it is a stupid argument.

Over at Slate, there is a rebuttal by William Saletan:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/01/27/ross_douthat_s_case_against_contraception_is_reproductive_choice_too_dangerous.html
Quote
...When you look at the totality of the argument, what stands out most strikingly is that none of it is about protecting unborn life. All of it is, in Douthat’s words, about “the power Roe v. Wade gave women over reproduction.” It’s not an argument against killing babies. It’s an argument against empowering women to separate sex from parenthood.

...

It is very good.  You should read it all.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: Traveler on January 28, 2014, 10:06:03 AM
Well, I agree with him on mass incarceration. And since he's already admitted it sucks, lets change it. As for empowering women, he can crawl back into whatever cave he crawled out of and meditate on why he's a cruel and sexist pig.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: Azdgari on January 28, 2014, 10:25:16 AM
What I find funny is that if he really honestly believes mass incarceration to be a piss-poor policy, then why not promote action on that directly instead of offering it as some sort of trade item to liberals?
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: Chronos on January 29, 2014, 06:38:27 AM
What I find funny is that if he really honestly believes mass incarceration to be a piss-poor policy, then why not promote action on that directly instead of offering it as some sort of trade item to liberals?

When you are a conservative, you have to save face or join The Borg.
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: nogodsforme on January 29, 2014, 05:38:23 PM
What went wrong with marriage? People are still getting married in the US.  Some are even of the opposite sex.  ;)

I read both articles, and it seems that "marriage"  is referring to some kind of primitive prehistoric relationship, one former virgin female in the cave, pregnant all the time, with one virile male out clubbing bears and dragging home the meat. When did this become the model of how human families in the 21st century should be formed? What is marriage for, anyway?

The conservative writer seems to think that his "walk down the aisle and then have monogamous sex with one person forever" version of marriage was always practiced, everywhere, right up until the 1970's when Norman Lear produced All in the Family.

People watched the teevee, see, and then, inspired by what they saw on Love, American Style,  started having random sex, getting divorced and aborting fetuses right and left. Poverty rose, prisons filled and social chaos resulted. So, to reduce social chaos, we should make people have babies they don't want, and force them to marry people against their will. And sit them down to watch reruns of The Waltons.

Wait, WTF?

If you look at how marriage really worked in different times in history, it always reflected economic reality, prevailing technology and social conditions. Until the 1800's most poor people never got formally married in most countries. They had informal/formal community sanctioned long-term hookups, because they had no property and nobody official cared who they had sex with.[1]

Babies came and kids were cared for more or less communally-- as they still are in most parts of the world. Death was common; kids died a lot; many women died having kids; most men died before their younger wives. So lots of people ended their lives with a different person than they started out with. The phrase "till death do us part" meant when, not if.

So, people are not getting married nowadays in the same way as in previous eras. Well, what has changed? Lots of things, all of them pretty positive.

1) We live in cities, not on subsistence farms, therefore we don't need to breed our own labor force to survive. The kids we do have can go to school instead of starting work at age 12 or 14. Fewer kids per family is better for women, and for the planet.

2) We finally stopped punishing unmarried people [cough women cough] for having sex. Contraception makes pregnancy more of a conscious choice for a woman than an accidental few minutes that then determines the rest of her life.

3) Child death rates have fallen; now social conditions are stable enough to have fewer kids-- most of them won't die.

4) Life expectancy is way up, so the idea of marrying at 18 and staying with that person until death (maybe 70 years or more) makes a lot less sense.

5) Women can earn a decent living and support themselves-- without having to cook and clean and have sex with a man who has a good job.

Clearly, the stats on single parent families being worse off are true. But that is mainly because two adults generally earn more and have more resources than one. If the conservatives really wanted to help kids (hah) it should not matter whose kids they were or how they got made.

They should get out of people's bedrooms and support all families regardless of marriage status or sexual orientation. They should be all about family allowances, daycare and after school programs, higher minimum wages, national health care and all that liberal sh!t that they consistently vote against. Then maybe I might give a damn about their faux concern for women and children.

Rant over. For now. 
 1. Of course, cultures always decided whether same sex nookie or polygamy was officially allowed or not....
Title: Re: Why abortion is Wrong...
Post by: Nam on January 29, 2014, 06:38:50 PM
It seems like the mentality, "We should go back to the 50's. Times were more peaceful then." Which is a load of shit. And it's mainly white men who say that: women knew their place, non-whites knew their place, you could beat your wife and not get into trouble for it. Sleep with anyone you wanted, and your wife couldn't (or by social standards of women being paid next to nothing an hour, and raising their children in a "proper" Christian home, and the church basically ran your (as in women) social life etc.,) divorce their husband because where would they go? What about the children? etc.,

It's all a figment of a reality that either never existed to begin with or only existed in parts, and even the reality of that isn't so much of a reality.

-Nam