A Newbie on the Abortion Issue.

Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 10:47 am

Hey everyone

After reading the topic thread ("Obama’s Election may Lead to the Overturning of Roe versus W"), I realized I only had a very vague and blurry stance on the entire pro-choice/pro-life issue; I think I'm pro-choice, but thats about all I can say.

So, I was curious if anybody on the forums knew of any good sites that discussed this. Any help is good help. Very Happy

Thanks,
Partisan

Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 11:57 am

I am pro-Right to Privacy. It's none of our business what a woman chooses to do with her own body.

Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 12:29 pm

SvZurich wrote:

It's none of our business what a woman chooses to do with her own body.

I agree, but this doesn't address the real issue, the other "body".

I hear the "pro-lifers" say, "life begins at conception". This statement is, in my opinion, intentionally obtuse, after all, the egg and sperm are also alive before mitosis begins. The real question should be, "when does the collection of cells in the women's body become human with human rights". I rather doubt the fetus, regardless of internal development, has any conception of self or death. These two concepts are probably the two defining attributes that make a human... human. So while the fetus will eventually develop these human traits, they probably don't acquire them until sometime after birth. Even though the fetus is technically alive, I feel the women's decision concerning the unborn fetus should trump any emotionally or religiously driven concerns, especially when the women's health is in question.

Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 12:34 pm

The Pro-Murderers (protect the fetus, murder those who are born and make war) are doing this based on a Biblical basis, correct?

The Bible says life begins when you draw first breath, aka after birth. A fetus is not a living human yet. Bible says so, I believe it, so there!

Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 1:01 pm

SvZurich wrote:

The Pro-Murderers (protect the fetus, murder those who are born and make war) are doing this based on a Biblical basis, correct?

There's probably a reasonable few who have taken up the banner of "pro-life" that aren't doing so because of biblical reasoning. But yes, I agree the pro-life/pro-war folks are woefully conflicted in their stance.

Quote:

The Bible says life begins when you draw first breath, aka after birth. A fetus is not a living human yet. Bible says so, I believe it, so there!

Ah yes, the soul comes with the breath of life. Biblical thought, especially early thought, awards little in the way rights to the fetus. Personally, I don't believe the baby immediately after birth is any more human then the fetus was before birth. It still cannot care for itself nor is it self-aware.

Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 3:41 am

One thing I've always found interesting is the fact that the biggest "pro-lifers" tend to also be the biggest supporters of war and capital punishment. In fact I think I've only ever known one person who was "pro-life" as well as being opposed to war and capital punishment. I've never understood how you can argue with the one hand that life is sacred and must be protected, while on the other hand arguing that war is not only necessary, but morally justified and that murderers (or even rapists) deserve to die. In the majority of cases, I really don't think it has anything to do with believing that life is sacred. I think most "pro-lifers" really just want to punish women for having sex, because most of them will make an exception for abortion in rape cases. The only difference in a rape case is that sex was forced upon the woman.

For me it's a simple matter of individual liberty. A woman is a human person and her right to choose what happens to and in her own body must take precedence over any rights a cluster of cells that is only human in a biological sense can be thought to have. Furthermore, it's hardly fair to force a child to be brought into the world if it is unwanted and unloved. Too many children are already in that situation as it is.

Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 10:18 am

If you are against abortion...DON'T HAVE ONE!

Mind your own business.

Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 6:11 am

Eon wrote:

One thing I've always found interesting is the fact that the biggest "pro-lifers" tend to also be the biggest supporters of war and capital punishment. In fact I think I've only ever known one person who was "pro-life" as well as being opposed to war and capital punishment. I've never understood how you can argue with the one hand that life is sacred and must be protected, while on the other hand arguing that war is not only necessary, but morally justified and that murderers (or even rapists) deserve to die.

Abortion is one issue that I don't have a firm stance on, it is a difficult one for me to decide one way or the other. I would say I am pro-choice, and the guideline that I usually use is that a human's rights begin when the fetus is likely to survive without the mother (so around 28 weeks (?) - and this is always changing with the advancement of modern medicine). However I have no objective reason for this deliniation apart from it "feeling" right to me. I am the type of person who needs to rationalize my stances empirically, so having a "gut" rationalization for this issue is uncomfortable for me. I agree with you, eon, about the cognitive dissonance with many of the pro-lifers. A particular example of this that stands out in my mind is George W. Bush's veto of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. He argued that using harvested human embryos for stem cell research crossed a "moral boundary", regardless of the fact that unused human embryos are normally destroyed and disposed of anyway. His irrational (in my opinion) protection of these "lives" contrasted starkly with his attitude towards another issue also making the news about that time, the civilian casualties of the Iraq war. Only a few months earlier, when asked how many had died as a direct result of the US invasion, he casually remarked, "I would say about 30,000". His dismissive attitude about these tragic deaths resulting from his own actions, while at the same time fighting to protect embryos that will not even become humans is bewildering.

Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 7:26 am

pk_boomer wrote:

Eon wrote:

One thing I've always found interesting is the fact that the biggest "pro-lifers" tend to also be the biggest supporters of war and capital punishment. In fact I think I've only ever known one person who was "pro-life" as well as being opposed to war and capital punishment. I've never understood how you can argue with the one hand that life is sacred and must be protected, while on the other hand arguing that war is not only necessary, but morally justified and that murderers (or even rapists) deserve to die.

Abortion is one issue that I don't have a firm stance on, it is a difficult one for me to decide one way or the other. I would say I am pro-choice, and the guideline that I usually use is that a human's rights begin when the fetus is likely to survive without the mother (so around 28 weeks (?) - and this is always changing with the advancement of modern medicine). However I have no objective reason for this deliniation apart from it "feeling" right to me. I am the type of person who needs to rationalize my stances empirically, so having a "gut" rationalization for this issue is uncomfortable for me. I agree with you, eon, about the cognitive dissonance with many of the pro-lifers. A particular example of this that stands out in my mind is George W. Bush's veto of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. He argued that using harvested human embryos for stem cell research crossed a "moral boundary", regardless of the fact that unused human embryos are normally destroyed and disposed of anyway. His irrational (in my opinion) protection of these "lives" contrasted starkly with his attitude towards another issue also making the news about that time, the civilian casualties of the Iraq war. Only a few months earlier, when asked how many had died as a direct result of the US invasion, he casually remarked, "I would say about 30,000". His dismissive attitude about these tragic deaths resulting from his own actions, while at the same time fighting to protect embryos that will not even become humans is bewildering.

Well said pk_boomer *applauds

Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2008 10:47 pm

Well, I now know two people who are both pro-life and opposed to war and capital punishment. However, while this other person considers abortion "immoral" (not for any particularly good reasons, mind you), he has not made it at all clear that he thinks it ought to be outlawed. I'd hope not, because he ought to be smarter than that.

Posted: Sat Dec 13, 2008 7:14 am

Eon wrote:

However, while this other person considers abortion "immoral" (not for any particularly good reasons, mind you), he has not made it at all clear that he thinks it ought to be outlawed.

Moral issues should be left mostly to the individual and not legislated; abortion is a good example of this. Another good example is gay marriage.

Posted: Sat Dec 13, 2008 7:46 am

MockingGods wrote:

Moral issues should be left mostly to the individual and not legislated; abortion is a good example of this. Another good example is gay marriage.

I think a better word for these issues is "human rights" issues. The word "moral" issues makes me think of questions like "is murder wrong" and such.

Posted: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:30 am

MockingGods wrote:

Eon wrote:

However, while this other person considers abortion "immoral" (not for any particularly good reasons, mind you), he has not made it at all clear that he thinks it ought to be outlawed.

Moral issues should be left mostly to the individual and not legislated; abortion is a good example of this. Another good example is gay marriage.

I quite agree. I don't have too much of a problem with a person who says "I think abortion is morally wrong". I take issue with the ones who say "I think abortion is morally wrong, therefore abortion should be illegal". >.>

Posted: Sat Dec 13, 2008 11:20 am

Eon wrote:

I quite agree. I don't have too much of a problem with a person who says "I think abortion is morally wrong". I take issue with the ones who say "I think abortion is morally wrong, therefore abortion should be illegal". >.>

Yes, it seems that a common problem with fundamentalists (apart from the obvious) is that they have an unrealistic perception of the world as it "ought" to be. In a perfect world, there would be no abortions, no wars, etc. But one has to be realistic and accept that this is not a perfect world, nor will it ever be, and we have to accept that before we can even try to come up with realistic solutions to the problems we do have.

Just Arrived Joined: Dec 09, 2008 Posts: 1

Help me out here guys...(gals). I am a non-believer. (Neither here nor there with Abortion.) I am trying to understand the scientific support for Abortion, and I can't seem to get it. I'm not emotional at all about it, although it might depend on what age the removal is administered. I truly want to support women with pro-choice, but I'm having a hard time drawing the line on the death time. I know if it is near birth, I clearly think it's wrong. So (scientifically), (biologically), we have to set a time table on withdrawal..... Smile

At what point does a human become human enough to feel pain be considered a murder in the eyes of a pro-choice person? What we DO know is after birth is a person and to kill that person is murder. You will all agree, so, at what point inside is Murder? Really? I truly want to know.

Maybe 6-9 months? If someone says "no time", "It's totally up to her", that's total B.S. To abort a 9 month old person is heartless.


Create an account	Home · Articles · Downloads · Video Library · Forums · Chat Room · aStore