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: 3873

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

@Adriana,

"there is a very definitive natural boundary which is birth"

Is a baby more human a minute after birth than a minute before? That makes birth seem as arbitrary as any other distinction.

I think PZ meant what he said: "There is no black-and-white boundary between non-personhood and personhood — it's an arbitrary line drawn in a continuum."
Yeah, MacInnes,

I'm talking about a viable fetus, removed from the womb. It's no longer a fetus.

Hormones kick in and (usually) result in all these things happening. But sometimes the newborn needs human intervention to start breathing. If the fetus is still not human, does that mean it's morally acceptable to not help the baby start breathing?

Also, just because birth causes hormones to kickstart a few organs is no kind of rationale, in my opinion, for personhood. Hormones cause puberty to kick in as well. Does that mean we aren't human persons until after puberty?
My issues with weighing cost against gains is: who decides? By what standard do we claim it is okay to kill a baby (NOT fetus)?

I believe it's a whole different can of worms, legally and morally, after the fetus is outside the womb, alive and viable.

You know, people . . . if the value of human life is not absolute, we need to value it as much as possible. I have a strong moral objection to any cavalier attitude toward human life -- and a living, viable fetus removed from the womb is a baby, a human being worthy of all the dignity and rights of any other human being.
@Kris,

"Your scenario was about withholding treatment, not about killing babies. Letting a person die is not the same as killing them."

I didn't say otherwise. I asked a question: "If the fetus is still not human, does that mean it's morally acceptable to not help the baby start breathing?", in response to MacInnes quote of Adriana's assertion that there are biological differences immediately after birth as compared to immediately before birth -- and (presumably) that these differences demarcate "a very definitive natural boundary which is birth"
If you remove a perfectly viable fetus from a womb, that's a birth. It's a baby; you are not performing an abortion

Well, technically....

;-)
P.S.

But when you abort a viable human fetus, that is NOT a natural boundary AND it's not an arbitrary line. The cat is now out of the bag, so to speak, and is alive and viable. Medical practice can certainly raise moral issues. Thanks to the doctor(s) the fetus is now a baby. It's a developing human person just like any other baby.

This baby may or may not survive, just like a premature baby. This baby might suffer developmental complications, just like a premature baby. Once it's born and is viable -- whether that birth be natural or "unnatural" -- it's a human and a citizen of the U.S. entitled to its rights and due process of the law. Just because a baby can't defend himself is no justification to deny him the inalienable rights we all possess, by law, at birth.

Nobody said life has to be fair. Sometimes the law can't make everybody happy.
PZ Myers has a blog today related to abortion and blastocyst rights vs women's rights.

Excerpt:

An "unborn child" (what a silly euphemism!) is not suddenly a person at conception: development is a gradual process of epigenesis, in which information and complexity expand over time, and the person does not form in an instant. There is no black-and-white boundary between non-personhood and personhood — it's an arbitrary line drawn in a continuum.


Exactly! The problem is where to we hang our hat as far as personhoond goes? Some might point to viability, but as at least on commenter noted earlier, medical advances push that line back further and further. Other logical parameters might move the line forward to include toddlers. There is no easy answer, but I can never agree that a clump of cells has rights that supercede those of an adult woman.
People will disagree, of course, but I believe fetal viability is the appropriate place to "draw the line".
I don't have a big problem with that, but as RM mentions, where do you draw that line in cost and how do you deal with the medical advancement that propels fetal viability towards conception? Will it be morally acceptable one day, but not the next because of a new technique or type of incubating process? Is it morally acceptable for those who can't afford the prenatal care, but wrong for those who can? What about those who can but it would harm their finances for years?

As Bob Novella is fond of saying, I don't have any solutions, but I appreciate the problem.
IMO foetal viability needs a clearer definition. I do not agree with viability based on intubation and incubation. For me, viability is based solely on the mother-baby relationship. A baby for whom the mother is insufficient is a medical project.
Can anyone tell me the abortion, vasectomy, vasectomy reversal and tubal litigation costs? Preferably from your area and if you know it for sure.

From a quick Google search I found out that the prices depend on the stage of pregnancy (that was sort of a given) and that a tubal litigation can be five times more costly than a vasectomy because it's a longer and more complex procedure (probably more dangerous too). But I also found different prices (big differences) for the same stages of pregnancy so I would like to know some accurate prices.
I can see your point here only because the women know the strains of their situation with hunger and sickness. So like you stated they know that 20% die. But here is the thing: They probably don't offer abortion in that country. So really what other choice do they really have? Abstinence of course but other than that (because we also know that the men of that country probably wouldn't go for their wife saying "um... no sex hun I don't wanna get pregnant".)

RSS

Events

Blog Posts

It's all Greek to me

Posted by Simon Mathews on April 15, 2015 at 4:14am 18 Comments

Free at last

Posted by Belle Rose on April 15, 2015 at 1:00am 3 Comments

Services we love!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service