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: 3790

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I am aware, but this does not change my responses. I feel that you are conflating issues.
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".)
Murder is one person intentionally killing another person.

Thus personhood is the legal and moral standard for murder. If one person intentionally kills another person, that's murder.

P.S.
Interesting data.
I fully 101% support abortion. If you don't have the means (physical,financial or mental) to nurture that life PROPERLY,then don't have it.
Joli said I think life is beautiful and precious because we are lucky to have consciousness

I'm mulling over an odd perspective here for the first time, and hope I'm not just repeating someone's similar post in the dozen or so pages I haven't read, yet.

I'm thinking about all the people in the world who've already lived a few minutes or several years, and are suffering terribly or about to die for no fault of their own. It's hard to say which of them at any particular moment we could be saving or helping, but in any case, there's a huge "out of sight, out of mind" factor that makes it possible for us to just ignore their plight.

At this moment (but not always), it kind of feels that way to me wrt fetuses. I'm thinking right now that I don't really have much empathy for a life that doesn't even have consciousness, yet. It doesn't yet have any kind of experience in the world out there, and it has no clue what life or death even is. If a mother miscarries even in her last month, I'll feel no empathy for the fetus, but I'll feel 100% empathy for the mother.

At what point do we ask the state to step in and enforce protection for the life? I usually feel it has more to do with my empathy for the human or other animal. Once a human or animal is born and I can see it breathe and cry, move, see its eyes taking in the world around it, I absolutely have empathy for it, no question. But before it's born, I can't even see someone like myself (before I was born) as "caring" about living. I would not be capable yet of seeking empathy. I can't even imagine that living is living, until I'm out in the world with light and sounds and smells and tastes and touch...

If that sounds insensitive, then I think all I can do is challenge people to care more about the living and actually act on it, because we still have a lot to do to make the world a safe and happy place for everyone who currently has to live in it.

RSS

Blog Posts

Creationists Dispute

Posted by Fouad on December 24, 2014 at 7:26am 3 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