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 :)

Views: 6077

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I share many of the views of George Carlin's, specially when talking about the sanctity of life. You said that "life is a beautiful and precious thing," I warrant you that it isn't for those children dying of hunger. Life is Life, whether it's beautiful or not is all about where you are standing.

Consider this, when it comes to abortion we only care about OUR own species. We don't think twice about the chicken eggs we eat (those are fertilize eggs too).

Women should have the right to carry an early abortion for any reason. Yet, I do not endorse abortions as substitutes for birth control. Abortions should be performed at any point of the pregnancy if the life of the mother is endangered. Abortions should be performed if a woman gets pregnant because of a rape. Abortions should be performed if the child is not likely to have a normal life, and if the parent(s) choose to do so.

Try thinking of life and abortion in objective ways, without adding any emotional baggage. After we all get that down, lets get down to care for the people who's already here, instead of those who don't exist and might never do so.

I agree with all you say; however, it misses the REAL point of the "pro-life" agenda.  It is NOT about reverence for life; if it were, these people would oppose the death penalty and wars, but they don't; in fact, they tend to embrace both wholeheartedly.  At its core, it is about the male domination many insecure men (and their obedient wives) see as being  endorsed in the Bible.  As I said, I agree with you, but it's a moot point, because it should not be MY decision, it should be YOURS and that of all women who face the agonizing choice.

You know one day, it would be really gratifying to walk into a "pro-life" abortion-banning, contraception-banning meeting, and announce:-

"You know what?  You're right!  Women can't interfere with the fertilised zygote!  At any stage! Absolutely right..... So obviously, we must insist that all men have vasectomies!"

Now that we have artificial insemination sorted, we really don't need pregnancy from sex.  Just have a bit of sperm frozen with your name on it, and line up here for the little snip.


No miniature calligraphy skills?  Oh dear, we won't be needing your genes in the pool!

Excellent idea, I've been promoting that one for a couple of years. Most importantly, no teen pregnancies, no unwanted pregnancies, AT ALL, now that would be major progress.

On top of that, imagine how much more well loved all the children of the world would be if they were all planned for, dear me, I dare say the academic performance of youth would surely double.

You know Dale, it was never really about the sanctity of life for faithers, that was just a chimera. It was originally about patriarchy's rights to fertilise females at will, to ensure that EVERY SINGLE MALE got a piece of the action, instead of just alpha males; that's why the apparent cognitive dissonance with capital punishment etc,

Hey I think I've come up with a way to solve the economy and the overpopulation problem. Why doesn't the US just borrow all the money they need from china and then just nuke them off the the planet? I know this is a ridiculous inhumane idea, but I cannot be the only person who's thought of it? I would not be in favour of this, it just seems like similar things have occurred in history that it wouldn't be all that surprising.

China??? why on earth China??? they're by no means the biggest culprit!

Look at this page: List of countries by ecological footprint. But don't use the default view, be sure to sort according to the last column, which takes in to account for the footprint of the country, but also the country's resource availability. The net eco-value of sorts.

So if you really want to get rid of countries, this is the order it should proceed in for the first dozen:

1-United Arab Emirates
8-South Korea
10-Saudi Arabia
12-United States

Now tweak that with demerit points for nasty attitude to human rights violations... I'd say no.9 would move to 4 and 12 would move to 6.

I picked china because they're indebted to them. It wasn't a serious idea.

same here :)

Nuking anywhere to any degree would likely have a bigger effect than the relatively local one. A study done a few years ago estimated that a modest 30 mega tonne exchange (six 50 kilo tonne warheads) between the two nations would throw enough material into the atmosphere to shorten crop growing seasons over the entire globe enough to reduce yields globally by some 20%. This was not taking into account the fact that due to radioactive contamination other crops would not consumable, and no new crops could be grown in those contaminated areas until the top 60cm of soil had been scraped away, which would be a vast civil engineering effort in itself.

Interestingly this study was done using computer modelling developed for climate change scenarios and surprised those who did it by just how modest an exchange could have a big global impact. Makes you wonder just how useful all those warheads actually are, it certainly made someone wonder because the proposed follow on study for smaller and larger exchanges was killed off, so it had someone worried.

I wish I could remember who did the study, if it comes to me I will post it.


Judith vd R.

I swear I'm really not a fan of a slow death for thousands of people! It's the main reason I'm pro abortion, and fixin'. Masssive breeding slow-down or stoppage can be achieved, it's a positive ecological outcome.


© 2022   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service