In this discussion I would like to talk about abortion. It is always something I have felt very strong about and would argue to the ends of the earth on. I have always been Pro-Life, always. Ever since I became an Atheist, this topic keeps popping up in my head. Since it is something I have not wanted to confront, I have been pushing it to the back burner. Now that I have given it some thought I would like to tell you where I used to stand and where I stand now. When I was a Christian my thought process was "Abortion is Never the right choice unless the mother and child will both die." So even if the child were to survive and the mother dies, abortion is still not the right choice. Some might even consider that murder, I guess. To answer this question I'm sure someone will ask, Yes I would have and still would give up my life for my child. Well, now I'm sort of seeing things a bit different. If a female gets raped and gets pregnant from it, abortion is ok, (sad all the way around - for everyone).  If a woman chooses to abort a baby due to the risk to the mothers life, Ok. If the baby will have a very very very difficult life and in turn make the parents have an equally difficult life, ok. To me abortion is a horrible thing, if someone wants to have an abortion just because oops I got preggo. That is horrible. If you don't want kids do everything in your power to NOT get pregnant. Simple as that. Life is a beautiful an precious thing, and yes I do believe it is special.  Any and All comments are welcome :)

Tags: abortion, pro-choice, pro-life

Views: 4121

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

In our SOCIETY, murder is generally wrong, rape is often wrong, making lots of money is good,procreating is good. Ethics are relative, morality is society based. When people such as yourself state that morality is individual you're simply making up your own rules as you go, a very libertarian attitute, which is really really entertaining... "what 'I' think is good is 'good', what 'others' think is wrong or irrelevant". You can't run a society like that, in the past, the point of morality was to establish a list of social rules, based on what a majority+1 of individuals agreed with, or if the dictator and/or church leader says so. Some 20,000 years ago, before humans gathered into large groups, there was no need for the above stated morals. If the neighbouring tribe killed one of yours, you went out and killed one of theirs, or made war on them... back and forth, back and forth, this ensured that human populations remained low. All these morals we speak of was a intentional political strategy to allow very large numbers of humans to coexist, not kill each other, and especially not kill the bastards that were enslaving vast numbers of slave labourers. Large human populations go against the very grain of our ape nature, and morality allowed for the cancerous growth of humanity.

If I were to be leader of my ideal society I would declare all human procreation to be immoral for about 50 years, a moratorium of sorts, to allow other species to recover from our systematic destruction of our ecosystem. Obviously, most humans think only of themselves and this proposal would not pass and I certainly would not in present time get elected to office with such a platform. It's my personal opinion, until it becomes policy, then it reaches the morality status. If it's just me saying it, it has no morality bearing.

eth·ics (Noun)

  1. Moral principles that govern a person's or group's behavior.

mo·ral·i·ty məˈralətē/

  1. Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
  2. Behavior as it is affected by the observation of these principles.

if ethics are relative then morality is also relative, the two are related and inseparable.  Morality in definition has no direct link to society.  Morality is individual though ethics and morality are elevated to the legislative level when the general population shares a common ethic.

Great then, we need no government and no legislation. I'll just "trust" that my neighbours values mesh with my own, lest I get murdered or something. A personal value, on it's own, is but anecdotal, and has no bearing in life unless you try to participate in your democracy, attempting to make your civilisation reflect the values you think are important. We as atheists are fighting faithers because we opine that society's morals would be better off serving our agenda than theirs. If you're content with your values being "just your own", then I'm afraid women would still not be voting and we'd still have a slave trade between Africa and the Americas.

Dictionaries are so handy! Now can we have the definitions of right & wrong, good & bad?

it's not so much about defining right and wrong as much as clarifying terminology and using this terminology to work out different situations. it's got nothing to do with the dictionary defining what is moral or immoral.

Ultimately, it'll come down to realpolitic. When the majority of the public wants women to be able to have an abortion, none of the moralistic arguments will mean a thing.

In the game of civilisation, politics is way more important than truth. It's ability to convince, diversifying the argument, reframing, which eventually leads to victory.

Abortion is such a complicated topic, which is why it's not easy for anyone. But you just cannot legislate personal morality, and this is one of those personal morality issues, like homosexuality, using drugs or alcohol while pregnant, even just using drugs (that legislation has been such a disaster). In some countries it is illegal to have premarital sex, and they prevent abortions by killing women who do so. That works. It's not right obviously, but it prevents abortions. Preemptive capital punishment. The concept of life before birth is a real one, but maybe life begins at erection. (I think bill maher said that). Making it illegal will do more harm to people than good. We need to provide sound sex education, and yes, include abstinence as a choice, but free birth control for sure will go a long way to preventing abortion and unwanted children or maybe not unwanted but children who are poorly cared for. This is something that should really be provided worldwide as improving education and preventing unwanted pregnancies may improve the worlds economy, which could help us all in this globalized, I have some big aspirations, maybe Melinda gates can do it for me.

You draw the line between personal and government at homosexuality, drugs, pregnant drinking, etc, others draw the line at different topics.

The point here is that as a society, we seem to agree that murder and theft are things we agree to legislate, whereas other topics are not legislatible. It is perfectly reasonable and rational, if someone thinks an action is wrong, that it is wrong for all of the society we are living in.

For example, I think dog fights and coq fights are disgusting and need to be illegal, however plenty of people think those are "personal moralities". Personal morality is BS. If I don't think dog fights are ok, they're not just not ok for me but for all of society.

For example child pornography, I don't want it and I don't think anyone in society should be allowed to profit from it either. so, we legislate.

Think of states which still have the death penalty, if the death penalty is "immoral" as some people like to say, why is it still on the books, who gets to write the books????

Legislatively speaking, we either agree with our societie's rules or we don't. Morality is a concept which I think should be dumped.

We agree with some actions

We disagree with other actions

We COMPROMISE on what is personal and what must be legislated/mandated on all of society.

IF I was a pro-lifer I would absolutely want a ban on abortion. But I am a pro-woman and pro-abortion, and I am against any legislation on any period of abortion, because any legislation in this regard hinders the fundamental right of a woman to manage my own body. IT'S NOT PERSONAL, IT'S SOCIETAL.

I don't disagree with your position, as far as it goes.  But what I want to know is how you feel about the death penalty and killing people in a war of choice.  If you oppose those as well as abortion, you are conscientiously and honorably pro-life.  If, on the other hand, you believe that some killings (adultery, apostasy, heresy, smiting people residing on real estate you covet, etc.), which God approves throughout the Bible are okay, then you are NOT pro-life, you are anti-choice ONLY .  

This link is representative of the backward nature of many around the world:

The oath of Hippocrates is a load of shit in my book.

Okay, personal morality doesn't mean anything to you, but to me it's pretty simple. If it affects only you and doesn't hurt anyone else, it's a personal choice. My rights end when yours begin, even if you're an animal. When it comes to a fetus, there is a concept of life there, but it's a potential life, and it's one that could harm me, either emotionally, physically, financially,and I have to be responsible for that one way or another and it cannot live without my body. This is a bit tricky with the late term abortions, if the baby can survive without the mother, then that's a bit of a different scenario. I bet those are few and far between, and usually done because the fetuses are non viable. I am pro choice, not pro abortion, how could you be pro abortion? That's a strange stance to take. Do you not agree that women should have the choice to not have an abortion? Anyway, I think we are on the same side and maybe I didn't express myself clearly. I don't believe in the death penalty but because innocent people are killed by mistake, not because its "immoral". And child porn, come on, who could argue that's a personal choice when you're harming innocent children? We live in a world with many different views, and the way to get along is to have strict rules around things that are harmful to others, and leave people some power to make their own decisions in areas that don't affect them. My main values are autonomy, safety and justice. Yours might be something very different, but we will agree that murder, theft, rape, exploitation and any molestation or abuse of children, slavery, assault, drinking and driving, selling dangerous drugs to kids.... On and on you'll see that all the things that we feel are wrong are those things that hurt someone else, or am I completely bonkers? The reason abortion is slightly harder for some people to get is the fact that there is life before birth... No one denies that. It's just that it's rights end where someone else's begin. And religion throws a whole wrench into the works, which is why we must have separation of church and state. ...and above, where I talked about animal rights, I guess that's a bit of a debate if you thought eating animals was wrong and I didn't, but torturing them is clearly nasty... Maybe this isn't so simple when it comes to animals, because some people view animal testing as wrong.. Anyway, you've certainly got me thinking, I'll keep on thinking about it for sure! Maybe one of us could start a thread on throwing out the concept of morals, I think there's lots to explore there...maybe you've already done that, if so point me in that direction as I'm new to the group!


© 2015   Created by umar.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service