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: 3883

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

the only problem with "having a baby just to put it into an orphanage then you should be taking care of the child yourself instead"...is that some people who are in this situation simply are not capable of really taking care of their child.

again..still so much more on this topic that is going through my mind, but I'm still busy. lol
Problem with "personal" adoption... sometimes you would not be able to find a person to take the child. A child may be wanted... but the birth parents may not be able to afford its care. Some children would not be adopted at birth: it's a cruel reality that there is a subset of children [of which I fell into... btw] that no one would take. For example: children with severe deformities? Down syndrome? autism? Born without limbs? Born blind? Genetic disorders?
Tell me the truth! Would anyone choose such an infant for adoption?
I'm sure you saw this coming, but I would.
Yet, there are already full orphanages and thousands of foster kids because there doesn't seem to be enough people who share your sentiment. Or, at least share your sentiment and actually act on it.

Boy Joli, I wish there were 10,00 people like you ! The orphanages would love to see everyone of you

I think life is beautiful and precious because we are lucky to have consciousness.

Consciousness does indeed kick much ass. In fact, it is why I tend to ascribe rights to sentients, rather than humans. Sentient beings have rights, no matter their DNA. (Human, alien, etc) Non-sentient beings do not have the same rights as sentient ones.

Thus, the way I see it, an embryo does not have the same rights as a sentient being until it has developed to the point where its brain is generating active brain waves (the end of the first trimester or so, if I recall correctly) Before that point, I see no ethical problems with abortion in and of itself. Afterwards, it gets trickier, although medical necessity is always an important factor.

Often, I see restricting access to abortion being promoted as a kind of punishment for a lack of personal responsibility. The entire argument that women would just use abortions because they couldn't be bothered to take precautions against becoming pregnant that is so prevalent in many anti-abortion platforms trivializes the magnitude of the decision on whether or not to have an abortion and also presents a false image of women who seek abortions. While I don't doubt that there are some who could treat an abortion as nothing more than after-the-fact birth control, I doubt if many, much less most, women fall into that category.

While I certainly agree that people (both men and women) should take responsibility for their actions and take all necessary precautions to avoid pregnancy if they are not prepared to raise a child, the fact remains that the various birth control methods are not 100% effective. Condoms break. The pill does not always work. Even surgical options such as having tubes tied or vasectomies have been known, on rare occasion, to fail. When these rare events happen, responsible adults will have to make up their minds on what they want to do and it would be unethical to restrict their options because of what some other irresponsible person might do.
I've missed you.
I have to disagree. A newly born baby is completely dependent on other people. Just as a 9 month foetus is. There is very little that is "switched off" in a full term foetus. The kindneys, liver, heart, brain, intestines and lungs all work. The only difference with the lungs is that they are breathing amniotic fluid.

Passing through the vagina (or indeed a scar in a caesarian) actually changes very little about the baby.

When nature in "her wisdom" "decides" to "cause" a miscarriage, it isn't always to do with the viability of the baby.

As for your relatives. There is nothing wrong with what they did. I am an atheist but the loss of potential is still sad. Are you saying that the mother should have felt no attachment to the foetus? Doesn't seem like a particularly pro-choice stand to me.
There is a difference between "needing its mother" and "needing medical intervention". Most premies need medical intervention to survive. Their mother is usually not sufficient. The point at which a foetus is ready for external mothering comes barely a few weeks before term.
We spend money teaching abstinence, which has been proven not to work.

Actually... I did a paper on abstinence-only ed in my freshman year of college, and a study published in 2007 indicated that AO sex ed wasn't simply ineffective... it was working in reverse. In other words... does anyone remember the 2000s spike in teen pregnancies that undid all the progress in the 90s that brought teen pregnancies to record lows? This spike was discovered in 2007... and directly attributed to AO ed. It was found that school districts who taught AO had 2 or 3 times as many pregnant teenagers and 3 or 4 times as many cases of STDs than did school districts that taught comprehensive sex education. Furthermore, the study found that the levels of premarital sex in both groups were the same, yet AO students were more likely to not use protection and more likely to believe that "it won't happen to them. Furthermore.... the so-called "chastity pledge" groups had the worst levels of teen pregnancy and STDs.
- The Point - Abstinence Only Sex Ed is a parasidic theocratic structure that instills ignorance and feeds off of the fear and despair of its victims. Furthermore, it does nothing for our society but hurt kids.
Thanks for the link to this site, i will surley read it :)

RSS

Forum

Babies Are Not Born Atheists

Started by Ed in Small Talk. Last reply by archaeopteryx 5 hours ago. 2 Replies

Gideons International

Started by Ed in Small Talk. Last reply by Reg The Fronkey Farmer 7 hours ago. 3 Replies

Draw Muhhamed day was yesterday Bring out your drawings

Started by ThyPlagueDoctor in Small Talk. Last reply by ThyPlagueDoctor 16 hours ago. 4 Replies

Bible Belt Promiscuity

Started by Dante in Advice. Last reply by Dr. Bob 6 hours ago. 11 Replies

am i the only athiest that believes in spirits

Started by Katie Patterson in Small Talk. Last reply by archaeopteryx 5 hours ago. 33 Replies

Events

Services we love!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service