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: 3665

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I don't have a uterus, for obvious reasons, but this is not a personal decision. This is a very real decision that the law has to make every day. I don't think anyone in society would allow you to have an abortion at full term (It is unlikely you would find even the most pro-choice doctor to do it).

The legal position lies somewhere in the middle of development (currently 26 weeks in the UK, I think).

I can't make the choice for you, correct. But society can. I am not against abortion but I find it difficult to define at what point society should define a foetus as being alive.

I don't think there is anyone (except extreme catholics) who regard eggs and sperm as being alive. Well, possibly alive in the most simple of terms but certainly not a human being.
I am not against abortion but I find it difficult to define at what point society should define a foetus as being alive.

A fetus is alive, as are sperm and eggs. No one disputes that. It is at what point do these living cells or fetuses (feti?) become a person that is endowed with rights? And should someone else's rights ever infringe on another persons rights?
The living, breathing thinkin person has a life. Why is potential life more important? Would you tell a woman that her life is not at all important she is just a convenient vehicle for a potential life?

The example my wife has used is a scenario where you wake up in the hospital and doctor's have attached another person to your body. They are sharing your blood and organ functions for 9 months until they are well enough to recover from whatever it was that happened to them. You didn't consent to this arrangement, but if the person is removed, he or she will die. Does their rights supersede yours? After all, he or she will die and you will merely be inconvenienced for 9 months with little to no ill effects afterwards, except maybe some scarring.

It is a good analogy to use if you want to attack the problem while granting "personhood" to the fetus equivalent in this allegory. My wife makes the argument, convincingly to me, that you can't suppress a person's rights even if it means life and death for another.
If you woke up with the doctor's having attached another person to you. You would be living off their organs, just as much as they are living off yours.

The doctors should be charged and you have to live with the consequences (whether you like it or not). In exactly the same way as you do if someone knocks you down and paralyses you. You end up living with the consequences and they end up being punished.

I am not picking fault with your abortion argument.I am really being pedantic and picking fault with your analogy.
It is not my analogy and I may not have presented it correctly. But, even if the doctors are criminals now, do you no longer have the right to disconnect the parasitic person? Or do you become an unwilling hostage that has lost some rights because someone else's life depends on it?

I think this analogy is better suited for a legal discussion.
If you become joined to such an extent that they are dependent on you, then it is very likely that you will be dependent on them. Disconnecting them may well endanger your life as much as theirs. That is the reason I said the analogy was flawed.

In a pregnancy the foetus is much more dependent on you than you are on it.
If you become joined to such an extent that they are dependent on you, then it is very likely that you will be dependent on them.

Not really. It's set up as a parasitic relationship. Your organs are whole and functioning. You are hosting the other patient in this scenario. I suppose the wording could be slightly improved to drive that point home, but I feel the point of the question and analogy still should have been clear.
What Kris said.
It is not my analogy and I may not have presented it correctly.

Think I saw this one on SyFy. Some vegetable cook named Tayree Shyvo (female) or similar was plugged into this right-stuff kind of pilot guy lying there. He unplugged her, but Captain Boosh ran into sick bay and plugged her back in. The pilot unplugged her again, then Admiral Boosh ran in and plugged her back in!

That's when I unplugged the TV.
Without my consent. Fuck yes, unhook me from this. No one has a right to do this.

I don't have to keep anyone alive with my body unless I choose to.
I agree. Personally I don't weigh it up in terms of life but in terms of suffering. I don't think anyone could deny a full term baby is alive, but the suffering for both mother & baby would be much greater if you attempted to abort it. As others have said, personal choice does sometimes cause suffering to others, but that doesn't make it a wrong choice. Doctors have made a cost analysis & have come up with a suitable window in which an abortion causes the least physical suffering. The woman must weigh up many different causes such as her future life, whether the baby would suffer through being born in to that life, and a million different reasons.

No two cases will be the same & all will require thought.& heartache, no one can make that desision for someone else. I don't think the fact that the baby is alive has anything to do with it. We're not talking about murder.

RSS

Blog Posts

Aftermath

Posted by Belle Rose on September 20, 2014 at 2:42am 0 Comments

PI = 4

Posted by _Robert_ on September 16, 2014 at 8:53pm 5 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