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: 3663

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Okay, I understand your point, but I find it.... outlandish? I think that is the word.

Here is what I am getting from your argument. When defining the entity's worth based on ability to "feel" things (or being sentient), then you are correct. The fetus is like a plant, you killed it, but that death does not matter because it isn't like the fetus felt anything or had the thought "oh, I wish to not die".

The point I am trying to make is that even thought that fetus shares the same sentient status as a plant, it does not make it a plant (or worth the same). That fetus is still the mother's child (and thus her responsibility) and is a human-being. In the most technical definition, once the sperm and egg combine their genetic material it forms a human. That fact (by it-self) should guarantee it protection from being killed (with the exceptions previously discussed). What-ever it can or can not feel is pointless. It is not a tree; it is like a tree, but not a tree. It is a human and gets human rights.

Is any of that clear, or have I again missed your point?

 

@ Zach - My reply to your post should be underneath this reply, as I am putting it at the bottom of the thread, so there will be more room.

That fetus is still the mother's child (and thus her responsibility) and is a human-being. In the most technical definition, once the sperm and egg combine their genetic material it forms a human.

It forms human tissue.  A zygote is not a human.  It is not an individual.  It is not a person.

For me, sentience has no bearing on the matter. The foetus is part of the mother's body. Discussing sentience is strictly a smoke screen.

Okay, I understand your point, but I find it.... outlandish? I think that is the word.

Here is what I am getting from your argument. When defining the entity's worth based on ability to "feel" things (or being sentient), then you are correct. The fetus is like a plant, you killed it, but that death does not matter because it isn't like the fetus felt anything or had the thought "oh, I wish to not die".

The point I am trying to make is that even thought that fetus shares the same sentient status as a plant, it does not make it a plant (or worth the same). That fetus is still the mother's child (and thus her responsibility) and is a human-being. In the most technical definition, once the sperm and egg combine their genetic material it forms a human. That fact (by it-self) should guarantee it protection from being killed (with the exceptions previously discussed). What-ever it can or can not feel is pointless. It is not a tree; it is like a tree, but not a tree. It is a human and gets human rights.

Is any of that clear, or have I again missed your point?


@ Zach - I underlined the part in your post where you said something that lost me. I don't consider a plant to have any sentient status at all, ever. Maybe the problem we are having is our understanding of the word "sentient". I know I said earlier that to me, the word sentient means something that can feel, perceive, or have consciousness. I do not consider a plant to have any of those qualities.

Exactly, that is what I type. Plants are not sentient, like a fetus (during an early-enough stage of development). I was not saying that plants are sentient; I was saying that they are not sentient (as we both understand). Your argument (as I understand it) is that because a baby is also non-sentient (like a tree) then it's death is equal to that of a tree. Then I tried to defend my point with the argument that whether or not the fetus is sentient does not play into it's protection.

I am not trying to sound degrading or any-thing (some may take this that way), but would you mind if I asked you to re-read my previous post with this explanation in mind now? I do not see any confusion, so I do not have any-thing else to go with unless you respond to it, but you probably already knew that. Again, I'm not trying to be rude (if you take it in that way); I just do not have any-thing to expand upon.

I look forward to your response. Also, thank-you for your constant notifications of where you moved the conversation. It is helpful.

 

If you're typing in a different text editor, you should use the insert plain text feature in the WYSIWYG editor.  Just click the icon with white rectangle witha 'T' in it and paste your text into the dialogue box, then hit the 'OK' button.  That way it will remove the colour formatting and won't show up black on dark grey for us.

Thank-you for the notification. I am sorry, but I can not find what editor you are talking about. I tried, but maybe if you could give me more detailed instructions I could. If not I will get one of my friends to try to fix this. Thank-you.

Op, maybe it is fixed. Never-mind then, I guess I got it!

Wait, why are my text white here, but black every-where else? I am sorry for my confusion. I will try to fix it.

 

Wait, why are my text white here, but black every-where else?

It has to do with the coded formatting of your text.  These days, if you copy and paste text, you often grab the formatting of the copied text as well. When you paste, you just see the words that you copied, but the website also sees associated formatting code such as: 

<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">

Just for reference, "WYSIWYG" (what you see is what you get) is a generic term, not a specific editor.  The default text mode on think atheist is WYSIWYG

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WYSIWYG

 

 

@ Zach - I will tell you how I did it and maybe it will work for you too. Type your post as you normally do. When you are finished, copy it. Then click on the "T" in the box on the top bar of the post, then a white box will appear. Paste your post into that white box. Then click on "OK" on the bottom of that that white box.

I'm sure there is an easier way but that is the only way I know how to do it.

RSS

Blog Posts

PI = 4

Posted by _Robert_ on September 16, 2014 at 8:53pm 4 Comments

Invictus

Posted by Marinda on September 11, 2014 at 4:08pm 0 Comments

Ads

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