Abortion

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: 5627

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Atheist Exile on December 1, 2010 at 9:52pm
According to the courts (and me) the moral difference is fetal viability. I think the courts thought rationally enough on the subject and I agree with them. Ditto for the high courts of most progressive democracies in the world.
Permalink Reply by Andrew Wilson on December 2, 2010 at 12:29pm
I am not a theist but would regard a foetus as alive somewhere between conception and full term. I just have a problem deciding exactly where the legal definition should be.
Permalink Reply by wisp on December 1, 2010 at 12:56am
I definitely would make an exception for cases wherein a late term abortion would be medically necessary. I just can't help being iffy on a totally elective abortion after the point at which the foetus would be reasonably viable outside the uterus.
Permalink Reply by T A A on January 11, 2011 at 10:29am
I have no issues with late term abortions either. As the long as the foetus is not externally viable without medical intervention, its rights are non existent.
Permalink Reply by Skycomet the Fallen Angel on November 30, 2010 at 4:03pm
"I don't think abortion should be legal for 'any reason.'"
I understand that this is the "light" position of "pro-lifers." However, a stance of "abortion shouldn't be performed unless the mother is raped or going to die" may be a noble stance, but it is not a realistic stance. The truth is that abortion did not begin with Roe v. Wade, it has been around since ancient times. During the victorian era of the United States history abortion was illegal and the penalty for beeing caught was death. However, history records a thriving black market of abortion practice during this time. Certain individuals were paid a fortune to destroy unwanted pregnancies. The most common clientele were young unmarried and wealthy women. Also... the poor women had their own way of doing abortions... and they risked their lives doing it. They would perform it on themselves with poisons [such as herbs and mushrooms said to induce miscarriage - sometimes they would just kill the woman instead as well as home performed surgical abortions that had high risk of death through hemorage and infection.]
Of course...some women throughout history have been either too cowardly to risk their life with home-abortions, and have resorted to something that would horrify anyone... infanticide

In ancient Rome, prostitutes would sometimes dispose of unwanted children by drowning them in underground water resevoirs. Other women would simply smother the child and then hide them from the law.

Fact is... throughout the time when abortion was illegal and dangerous... women were willing to risk death and imprisonment to get rid of unwanted pregnancies. If Roe v. Wade were oerturned... that would not stop abortion... it would only drive it underground where it would exist alongside the world of drugs. It would also make it far more dangerous and would spike the rates of BORN infant murders.

As you can see... some evils are not able to be destroyed by laws. [if you consider abortion evil that is]. Outlawing alcohol and drugs has been an absolute and embarrassing failure and outlawing abortion would be as well.
Permalink Reply by Joli on November 30, 2010 at 4:16pm
I agree that outlawing abortion is not the answer here. I think that the person getting an abortion should not just be able to walk into a clinic and get one. There should be some kind of qualifications to getting an abortion. I know this impedes womens rights, but forgive me, it's a off the top of the head thought. I think the right person could take that idea and run with it in a good moral direction.
Permalink Reply by Skycomet the Fallen Angel on December 1, 2010 at 9:49pm
True, taking precautions and making a woman think it through is a good idea. Problem is, that the current pro-life tactics of "qualifications" and "thinking it through" are making matters far worse. They are diseminating false and misleading information about birth control in "abstinence only sex ed programs." - which has led to more unwanted pregnancies, and more abortions. They have set up FAKE clinics made to look like planned parenthood and designed to decieve a woman into entering, and being scarred for life with false information and fear-mongering. They have made it legal for pharmasists to refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control, if it conflicts with their "moral conciense." They have set up propaganda claiming that the Emergency Contraception pill is the same thing as the abortion pill RU286. They have made it impossible for teenagers in some states to get abortions without their parents finding out that they are pregnant... and facing the wrath of those parents. They have mislead teenagers and minorities into thinking that they have no options.

Case in point:
A few years ago a young Latina became pregnant in high school. She could not afford to care for the child and was fooled by a prolife group into thinking that abortion was already illegal. So, in desperation, she convinced her boyfriend to perform a dangerous home- abortion on her [yes this is already starting to happen] by beating her stomach repeatedly with a baseball bat.
The girl was hospitalized and went free.... but her boyfriend [who had her consent in the bludgening] went to jail for assault.
Permalink Reply by Cecilia on January 11, 2011 at 2:16pm

This reply isn't really about abortion, per se, but I must respond to something you said because it is one of my pet peeves.  You said:  the adoptive parents would not breast feed the child and give it the best quality of life due to the fact that it will be missing antibodies from the mothers breast milk? So now the child will likely have a more sickly life

 

I have two kids, now ages 21 and 19. Neither of them was breast fed and both of them are quite healthy now and were never sickly as children.  It is a pet peeve of mine because I think that earth mother feminists push breast feeding to the exculsion of any other forms of nursing that they lose perspective because not all women can do it, not all women are lawyers who can demand that their firm set up a "pumping room."  And women who don't breast feed are made to feel guilty.  At least I found that true in my day, I always to say "my breasts, my body"!!

 

Anyway, I don't think the lack of breast feeding is a reason to be against adoption.  Adoption is a viable option and I think that a woman who finds herself facing an unintended pregnancy should be allowed to choose adoption without people getting in her face and telling her she should have an abortion.  Just as she should be free, if it is her choice.  And, yes, in some circles a woman who choses to carry her pregnancy to term and either raise the baby herself or give it up for adoption is criticised.  Many of the critiques of the movie "Juno" and "Knocked Up" took that point of view.  Also, I remember (now I am dating myself) when "Murphy Brown" got pregnant the head of NARAL or some other pro-choice organization criticized the show because Murphy Brown chose to keep and raise the baby herself.  (Everyone, of course, remembers Dan Quayle's remarks.)

 

I am not crazy about abortion but I do not think that it should ever be illegal, it should be the woman's choice with sensible regulations (i.e., based on medical reasons) to protect women's health (just as I do not think guns should be illegal there just should be sensible regulations).  But I do think that for women who live somewhere where they have access to birth control, there is rarely an excuse for an unintended pregnancy (obviously, nonconsensual sex is included from what I am saying).  Back in the day, when I started college (and we went to the health clinic for birth control and they made you have a lesson before they'd give it to you) we were told to always use at least two methods: for the guys condoms, for the girls barrier method and spermicide (lots and lots of it) or contraceptive pills.  I had some friends who did all three!! 

 

After reading what I just wrote, although I agree with it, I realize that, unfortunately in today's world the religious right has made it much harder to young women and men to be educated about birth control.  And that is a real shame.  And, personally, I think that that is where the fight for reproductive rights should be focussed now - making sure that every kid knows how to use birth control effectively.  Because the bad guys are going to try to chip away at that.  No more, fricking, abstinence only sex ed!!

Permalink Reply by T A A on January 11, 2011 at 2:50pm

Not anecdotally, but statistically speaking, breasfeeding plays a positive role on a child's health. An infant incidentally not breastfed is a quite different context from an infant intentionally not breastfed. The first well you just have to make due with the situation, the second is child abuse.

 

I disagree fundamentally with women who insist on procreating but do not plan on mothering, or on mothering just a minimial number of hours per day. The whole concept of the 'superwoman' is terribly unappealing to me. I wholeheartedly believe in feminism and I myself am against having babies to begin with. But if one is to have a baby, damn well give it the maximum motherly input it should have and place career second.

 

But for this, procreation needs to be thought out and most people refuse to do this and take procreation for granted.

Permalink Reply by Andrew Wilson on December 2, 2010 at 12:35pm
"the fetus is not a human being"

Even at 9 months term? You would have to show a significant difference between a full term baby and a newly born baby to even begin to hope to prove that statement.
Permalink Reply by Sydni Moser on December 1, 2010 at 9:37pm

Permalink Reply by William C. Walker on December 1, 2011 at 3:08pm

Kyara, A fetus isn't a baby, & an egg isn't a chicken.  The world's population is now over seven billion - up from two billion a bit over a century ago.  If we don't 'do something ' - nature will.

RSS

© 2022   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service