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: 3753

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I agree that outlawing abortion is not the answer here. I think that the person getting an abortion should not just be able to walk into a clinic and get one. There should be some kind of qualifications to getting an abortion. I know this impedes womens rights, but forgive me, it's a off the top of the head thought. I think the right person could take that idea and run with it in a good moral direction.
I agree Adriana:)
True, taking precautions and making a woman think it through is a good idea. Problem is, that the current pro-life tactics of "qualifications" and "thinking it through" are making matters far worse. They are diseminating false and misleading information about birth control in "abstinence only sex ed programs." - which has led to more unwanted pregnancies, and more abortions. They have set up FAKE clinics made to look like planned parenthood and designed to decieve a woman into entering, and being scarred for life with false information and fear-mongering. They have made it legal for pharmasists to refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control, if it conflicts with their "moral conciense." They have set up propaganda claiming that the Emergency Contraception pill is the same thing as the abortion pill RU286. They have made it impossible for teenagers in some states to get abortions without their parents finding out that they are pregnant... and facing the wrath of those parents. They have mislead teenagers and minorities into thinking that they have no options.

Case in point:
A few years ago a young Latina became pregnant in high school. She could not afford to care for the child and was fooled by a prolife group into thinking that abortion was already illegal. So, in desperation, she convinced her boyfriend to perform a dangerous home- abortion on her [yes this is already starting to happen] by beating her stomach repeatedly with a baseball bat.
The girl was hospitalized and went free.... but her boyfriend [who had her consent in the bludgening] went to jail for assault.

If the woman did everything she could to keep from getting pregnant, Birth control, condemns? She didn't want the child, did not want to carry it, do you think she should still be made to have it?

Then if she did have it, but hated it and neglected it I suppose you think that she should be punished because she was made to carry a child she didn't want?

If she put it up for adoption the adoptive parents would not breast feed the child and give it the best quality of life due to the fact that it will be missing antibodies from the mothers breast milk? So now the child will likely have a more sickly life, Not only that but the child will grow up and one day find out that its mother did not want it. And it was separated from its mother, this will cause problems for the child as it gets older no matter how much of a loving home it was in.

Then it gets old enough to go find the mother, and she looks it in the eyes and says they made me have you against my will, so I gave you up because I was not ready or simply because I didn't want you or I could not afford you, or in some cases I was addicted to what ever it was I was addicted to? You don't think this is going to cause emotional problems for the child?

 

Granted there are some women who choose to have the child and put the child fist but there are some that did everything they could to not get pregnant in the first place, they didn't want the scars it would leave on their body, the weight gain.. Do you think that a mother who doesn't want the child is going to take care of her self correctly during the pregnancy? Chances are they will not.. If they were willing to abort to begin with, if abortion was made illegal for them they would just go in to a dark alley to do it.

You have 14 year old girls that get pregnant now and have kids in their basement, their parents never know they are even pregnant, they bag them and throw these babies in dumpsters? Exactly where do you draw the line in right an wrong there?

I have to ask because well I think it is alot more wrong to make someone carry through a pregnancy when she is not willing to take care of her self through the pregnancy for the benefit of the child and then the child is born with less quality of health due to the fact someone decided it was more moral for the mother to have the child than to say I am not going to do what is right by the child so I am going to get rid of it?

This reply isn't really about abortion, per se, but I must respond to something you said because it is one of my pet peeves.  You said:  the adoptive parents would not breast feed the child and give it the best quality of life due to the fact that it will be missing antibodies from the mothers breast milk? So now the child will likely have a more sickly life

 

I have two kids, now ages 21 and 19. Neither of them was breast fed and both of them are quite healthy now and were never sickly as children.  It is a pet peeve of mine because I think that earth mother feminists push breast feeding to the exculsion of any other forms of nursing that they lose perspective because not all women can do it, not all women are lawyers who can demand that their firm set up a "pumping room."  And women who don't breast feed are made to feel guilty.  At least I found that true in my day, I always to say "my breasts, my body"!!

 

Anyway, I don't think the lack of breast feeding is a reason to be against adoption.  Adoption is a viable option and I think that a woman who finds herself facing an unintended pregnancy should be allowed to choose adoption without people getting in her face and telling her she should have an abortion.  Just as she should be free, if it is her choice.  And, yes, in some circles a woman who choses to carry her pregnancy to term and either raise the baby herself or give it up for adoption is criticised.  Many of the critiques of the movie "Juno" and "Knocked Up" took that point of view.  Also, I remember (now I am dating myself) when "Murphy Brown" got pregnant the head of NARAL or some other pro-choice organization criticized the show because Murphy Brown chose to keep and raise the baby herself.  (Everyone, of course, remembers Dan Quayle's remarks.)

 

I am not crazy about abortion but I do not think that it should ever be illegal, it should be the woman's choice with sensible regulations (i.e., based on medical reasons) to protect women's health (just as I do not think guns should be illegal there just should be sensible regulations).  But I do think that for women who live somewhere where they have access to birth control, there is rarely an excuse for an unintended pregnancy (obviously, nonconsensual sex is included from what I am saying).  Back in the day, when I started college (and we went to the health clinic for birth control and they made you have a lesson before they'd give it to you) we were told to always use at least two methods: for the guys condoms, for the girls barrier method and spermicide (lots and lots of it) or contraceptive pills.  I had some friends who did all three!! 

 

After reading what I just wrote, although I agree with it, I realize that, unfortunately in today's world the religious right has made it much harder to young women and men to be educated about birth control.  And that is a real shame.  And, personally, I think that that is where the fight for reproductive rights should be focussed now - making sure that every kid knows how to use birth control effectively.  Because the bad guys are going to try to chip away at that.  No more, fricking, abstinence only sex ed!!

I understand what you are saying, and No maybe breast feeding isn't the only way to go with my argument.

I am not crazy about abortion either. But I am not for forcing a woman to carry a child she doesn't want.

I was a bottle fed baby, I have several health problems all the way down to food allergies. No it can't be proven that it was from being bottle fed. Of course my mother honestly tried to breast feed just never produced milk so it was not her fault.

I am not against bottle feeding, however when you can I think children should be breast fed. My kids are rarely sick, neither of them were sick before the age of 2. My son has had one ear infection in his whole life. I know 4 different parents right now who are going through getting tubes in their kids ears. That has been linked to the baby falling asleep with the bottle in their mouth..

Of course my kids have always been with me, I don't put them in day care, and I don't allow smoke around them.

I eat an organic diet, and have made most everything they have ate all their life, aside from an occasional trip to McDonalds in the winter for them to play on the play set and I let them have fries and a juice there. I made all their baby food, they wore cloth diapers. It really had nothing to do with being an earth mother, it had more to do with being concerned for their health, My daughter wore one pamper, one time, she didnt' even go to the bath room in it, had it on for 2 hours she got a rash from it.. I stopped that quick..Sometimes I wonder if protecting them from processed foods and all isn't setting them up for allergies in the long run.. However I do the best I can.. I am not trying to say that a mother who chooses to bottle feed is wrong.. However the other emotional bonds of adoption are still there.

Every child should know how to use birth control, and every women should be allowed to say I don't' want kids so fix me too. But we don't live in a perfect world.. In a perfect world women who were 18 that decided that kids were not for them ever, could walk in and be fixed.

In a perfect world, abortions would not be necessary because people would be educated..

In a perfect world adoptions would not cost so much that they become unaffordable to those who can't have children yet want them..

In a perfect world morals would be what they are and viewed as what they are, just another persons opinion on how life should be dictated.. We don't live in a perfect world, so before hitting issues that take away rights of those who choose to exercise their rights, we should give them the rights to be able to choose their own course of action.. 

I am pro choice on a lot of things that people would deem to be immoral.. However I have been through a lot. I am a hard core thinker trying to see views from others points..

Breast feeding is not the take I should have went there, that again is just another opinion. However knowing several people who were adopted I have seen the emotional strong hold it has on them..  That isn't always very easy to deal with..

Not anecdotally, but statistically speaking, breasfeeding plays a positive role on a child's health. An infant incidentally not breastfed is a quite different context from an infant intentionally not breastfed. The first well you just have to make due with the situation, the second is child abuse.

 

I disagree fundamentally with women who insist on procreating but do not plan on mothering, or on mothering just a minimial number of hours per day. The whole concept of the 'superwoman' is terribly unappealing to me. I wholeheartedly believe in feminism and I myself am against having babies to begin with. But if one is to have a baby, damn well give it the maximum motherly input it should have and place career second.

 

But for this, procreation needs to be thought out and most people refuse to do this and take procreation for granted.

I agree with that too.. However I do know that some plan on mothering, but can't.. That is a whole other topic.

I understand having a child and giving it away if that is what the mother wants to do, in that case the adoptive parent cant and in some cases mother's can't produce breast mild..

I never had a child that I didn't intend to mother, so I am a bit big on breastfeeding.

The bond can't be broken that is for sure.. My kids are happy, home schooled, and spoiled ass rotten at times.

But you know what, I have had many friends compare my kids to other's and I have always been commended for my parenting, and their happiness.

I miss my career life, but I do stay home to raise my kids, they are my career.

I understand all marriages do not work out so that you can do that and some women have to work, but I disagree with careers mixing and going well with parenting..There is no such thing as a super woman!

I don't know if I were making the criteria of what you had to do to be able to have a child most people would not fit under it..

 

"the fetus is not a human being"

Even at 9 months term? You would have to show a significant difference between a full term baby and a newly born baby to even begin to hope to prove that statement.

Kyara, A fetus isn't a baby, & an egg isn't a chicken.  The world's population is now over seven billion - up from two billion a bit over a century ago.  If we don't 'do something ' - nature will.

I was thinking of writing a reply to this topic but wisp already wrote everything I would say (nearly word for word). 

Good job wisp

RSS

Atheist Sites

Blog Posts

Rounding Up?

Posted by Carol Foley on November 20, 2014 at 3:17am 2 Comments

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service