Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Finally opening up about abortion on this forum
#26

Finally opening up about abortion on this forum
(05-16-2019, 06:04 PM)Mark Wrote:  I doubt if anyone has ever gotten one who didn't feel some remorse.

Not true.  Most women feel a great sense of relief.  When I had an abortion I was very at peace with the situation and hugely relieved.  There's a misconception that women suffer from  depression after an abortion  and religious groups have tried to market this as one more justification against abortion but studies showed this is not at all true.

There was no way I could have afforded a child.  I had the abortion at about 4 weeks into the pregnancy.  I was on birth control pills at the time but also was taking antibiotics which, unbeknownst to me, causes the birth control pills to be less effective.  

If women have no autonomy over our bodies then no one does. It's a very slippery slope.
                                                         T4618
The following 14 users Like Dancefortwo's post:
  • julep, Deesse23, Szuchow, Vera, Bucky Ball, Jenny, SYZ, Alan V, madog, Thumpalumpacus, Tres Leches, Fireball, Losty, leerob
Reply
#27

Finally opening up about abortion on this forum
The consequences in countries where abortion is legal and where sex education is more than abstinence-only are that abortion numbers are reduced, as well as maternal deaths.  You can be as morally superior as you care to, but the pragmatic position, that is, the position that ends up with more lives and less misery, is support for abortion and fertility control services that are easy to access and affordable.  

Let your god punish that 14-year-old teen who doesn’t want to bear her father’s baby, or the mom of three who can’t afford another child, or the party girl who didn’t even get the name of the guy who knocked her up, etc.  he doesn’t need your help to do it, nor does he need you to shame women and their partners and families (often involved in these decisions) for making personal choices.  

If you Must shame someone, how about the men who refuse to take any responsibility for birth control or the children they get, or the priests and preachers who tell girls that intercourse defiles them and so turn sex into something to be hidden and lied about, so that females aren’t educated about how to protect themselves from pregnancy?
god, ugh
Reply
#28

Finally opening up about abortion on this forum
(05-16-2019, 05:07 PM)Catholic_Lady Wrote: But it is also true that, as a human being, her fetus has the right to live.

In reference to Thumps post and thought experiment:
If you grant fetuses the same right as to persons, then you have to grant each fetus the same right as to any other fetus.

Lets imagine you have a 3 month fetus and his mother is aware that she is pregnant. Lets assume you have a 6 week fetus of a mother who does not know she is pregnant. Mom #2 may engage in activity that endangers the fetus´ life (sports comes to mind, or hard work) by accidentally aborting it. If you want to grant fetus #2 the same right to live (= not to be aborted) as to #1 you need to first find out that mom #2 is pregnant. Do you want to force women to do pregancy tests in order to protect the life of fetuses? Trying to think this kinda scenario through leads me to conflicing and absurd (seemingly) situations, even situations in which i think you need to infringe on others´rights (= the mother) in order to grant rights to fetuses. This seems to hint to me that this is not a reasonable way at all to deal with the situaiton, and something seems to be wrong with the very premise of it (rights of fetuses vs moms).


In other words:
Women have rights, to live in general and to bodily autonomy. While i accept that fetuses are potential persons (to me, a person is someone who has been born; "human" is no useful definition to me for the purpose of this scenario) and as such also have a (potential) right to live, i would say that the actual persons right (womens) right trumps the right of the potential person (fetus). I think the dilemma of abortion or not is often protrayed wrongly (and often knowingly so) as a topic of solely the rights of fetuses. Its not. Its a matter of where ones´rights start and another ones´rights end. We have this conflict in other scenarios too (second amendmend vs victims of mass murders for example). Yes, this is life and sometimes we only can chose between two bad scenarios and someone is to suffer, either way. Pretending that by granting fetuses maximal rights to avoid suffering at all seems to be naive (imho, or should i may say overly emotionally driven?) or disingenuous. Looking at the potential mother with a blind eye and looking for ways to support her once you have *forced* (compelled?) her to carry out her pregnancy is (imho again) only a deperate try to ignore that there is a conflicting scenario (with conflicting rights) in the first place.

I stand to be corrected/convinced of something else if someone is able to present me with convincing arguments.

Having just read Doms post i have to agree that it may be better for CL to postpone this topic. In any case i do not wish to hurt her in any way nor do i expect a reply.

Just my 2c.
cetero censeo religionem esse delendam 
The following 2 users Like Deesse23's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus, Tres Leches
Reply
#29

Finally opening up about abortion on this forum
But of course, none of that should be interpreted as marginalizing the regard you have for your very much desired unborn child. That baby to be is already loved and wanted. I stand strongly against any hint of disrespect toward that little girl.
"Talk nonsense, but talk your own nonsense, and I'll kiss you for it. To go wrong in one's own way is better than to go right in someone else's. 
F. D.
The following 4 users Like Mark's post:
  • Deesse23, Dom, adey67, Fireball
Reply
#30

Finally opening up about abortion on this forum
(05-16-2019, 05:34 PM)Dānu Wrote:
(05-16-2019, 05:26 PM)Catholic_Lady Wrote:
(05-16-2019, 05:14 PM)Dānu Wrote: Where are you getting that a fetus has a right to live from?

From the same place that all humans have the right to life. 

Things like slavery, the holocaust, the wiping out of the Native Americans, etc, were all founded on the belief at the time that those people weren't really human or weren't *as* human... and therefore they didn't posses basic human rights. Some of the worst atrocities and crimes against humanity throughout history were done based on the notion that certain groups shouldn't be counted as human beings. I guess we must have a tendency to do that, because it is something that has happened since as far back as we know history. It's a road and a type of thinking that we need to strive to turn away from as we become more civilized and gain a better understanding of the dignity of human life.

And where are you getting that all humans have a right to life from?  That's essentially the same claim in a different form.  If fetuses don't have a right to life, then not all humans have a right to life.  Since both are essentially equivalent, neither can be justification for the other without begging the question.  So, in essence, this is nothing more than saying that fetuses have a right to life simply because you say so.  I'm sorry, but that's not good enough.  And I haven't disputed that the fetus is human at all.  That alone doesn't get you to fetuses having a right to life.  It's a common pro-life argument, but it's little more than trying to smuggle your assumptions in by pretending that being human in some sense means you have a right to life.  But that is the very issue at stake, so you can't use one to justify the other.  And your latter statement is blatant poisoning of the well, implying that anyone who thinks differently than you do is somehow defective.

Are you a moral nihilist or relativist (or something else)?
Reply
#31

Finally opening up about abortion on this forum
(05-16-2019, 07:14 PM)Dancefortwo Wrote:
(05-16-2019, 06:04 PM)Mark Wrote:  I doubt if anyone has ever gotten one who didn't feel some remorse.

Not true.  Most women feel a great sense of relief.  When I had an abortion I was very at peace with the situation and hugely relieved.  There's a misconception that women suffer from  depression after an abortion  and religious groups have tried to market this as one more justification against abortion but studies showed this is not at all true.

There was no way I could have afforded a child.  I had the abortion at about 4 weeks into the pregnancy.  I was on birth control pills at the time but also was taking antibiotics which, unbeknownst to me, causes the birth control pills to be less effective.  

If women have no autonomy over our bodies then no one does. It's a very slippery slope.

Rather than misconception I would call it a carefully cultivated myth. After all if every women feels regret/shame/whatever negative feeling then it is another (shitty) argument against abortion.
The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
The following 2 users Like Szuchow's post:
  • Tres Leches, Dancefortwo
Reply
#32

Finally opening up about abortion on this forum
I haven't read through this entire monster yet, but I'll just say that nobody asked me (that I remember) whether I wanted to be born. And I never volunteered my desire of such or lack thereof, so I'm not sure how birth is a right of the fetus (acknowledged or not). I think life has been very interesting thus far, but would I have knowingly signed up for it? I'm not convinced I would have.
“For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.”
-Carl Sagan

"The best counter to extremist speech is not censorship. The best counter is more speech." -Thumpalumpacus
The following 7 users Like c172's post:
  • Dom, julep, Alan V, madog, Tres Leches, Dancefortwo, evenheathen
Reply
#33

Finally opening up about abortion on this forum
I personally don't agree with abortion *for myself.* I can see how CL feels and I tend to feel the way she does--However, I feel that way for myself and myself only. I say *for myself* because I don't feel it's my place to tell another woman what to do with her body.
The following 8 users Like Jenny's post:
  • Deesse23, SYZ, madog, Thumpalumpacus, Tres Leches, Dancefortwo, TheGentlemanBastard, adey67
Reply
#34

Finally opening up about abortion on this forum
(05-16-2019, 06:44 PM)Catholic_Lady Wrote:
(05-16-2019, 06:04 PM)Mark Wrote: First of all I admit that the whole business of abortion is regrettable and I doubt if anyone has ever gotten one who didn't feel some remorse even if their overall best judgement was on the side of going through with it.

That said, I don't think the lives of fetuses are on par with those of us who have been born.  We've reached a level of self sufficiency which makes the taking of our lives harder to justify, though the law may determine that threshold has been reached depending on what transgression I may have committed.  The lives of our fetuses are more on the level of the lives of our pets in that they are our dependents.  That doesn't mean we are free to abuse them and the law reflects that.  Harming either our pets or fetuses is more a matter of policy than rights.  They have the rights we wish to bestow on them as they are unable to understand what is at stake and unable to speak for themselves.

You mentioned feminism and that is relevant here.  Men and women are both motivated by their bodies natural urges toward sex.  We hope to use good judgement in situations where sex may ensue but we don't always.  Currently the disincentive for women to risk sex is much higher than it is for men, especially in states which make abortion illegal.  When it comes to what the law says we may or may not do with our own bodies, we wish to be as unrestrictive as possible.  We also expect that such restrictions affect everyone equally.  Prohibition on abortion can never be made equitable between the sexes.  I just can't be.

While regrettable abortions may be deemed necessary for the health or well being of the mother.  If an unwanted pregnancy should occur at a time that a woman is unwilling to undergo the inconvenience of pregnancy and parenting, I feel her wishes must be respected.  I don't want the law to make that imposition on my behalf.

In reference to your second paragraph: 

I don't see, logically, how level of self sufficiency should determine whether or not a human being has a right to life. I don't see how one thing has to do with the other. There are people who are sick, disabled, etc, who need constant, round the clock care. I am just now, with all my research, learning how much a new born is going to need me, and how completely helpless they are (Joelle is much easier to care for while she's in my womb than she will be when she's out lol). A baby born premature? Even more so, as they need tubes and oxygen masks hooked up to them for months in order to survive. I think you and I can both agree that sick people, newborns, and premature babies all have a right to life, and that taking away their life without their consent isn't something that *we* have a right to do. They are also our dependents, but that doesn't make them less worthy of the fundamental right to life. 

That's why I think the notion that the right to life being dependent on self sufficiency falls apart. Not a single one of us are self sufficient when we are born, and chances are we will be old and sick one day, and need special care. 

This is a concern which came up in my preparation for my debate upon the ethics of animal exploitation. Proponents of animal rights argue that because animals display comparable capacities to certain marginal cases, such as the mentally handicapped, infants, and so on, that we should extend the same rights to animals that we extend to humans in these marginal cases. I haven't fully explored the question, so I have no ready answers, but this argument just smells wrong to me. I would have to point out that humans are similarly limited in their capacities when they are sleeping, yet I would find it absurd to hold that we shouldn't kill animals because we don't allow the killing of people who are asleep. That suggests to me that this whole "marginal cases" argument is crap. But seeing how you've made the argument, and that essentially the same argument can be made in favor of prohibiting the killing of animals, are you as vehemently against the killing of animals as you are against the killing of fetuses? If not, why not?

I also noticed you didn't address my prior post. Are you going to address where you get your idea that all humans have a right to life from?
[Image: signature%20The-Ascension-of-Iweko.jpg]
Reply
#35

Finally opening up about abortion on this forum
(05-16-2019, 07:18 PM)SteveII Wrote:
(05-16-2019, 05:34 PM)Dānu Wrote:
(05-16-2019, 05:26 PM)Catholic_Lady Wrote: From the same place that all humans have the right to life. 

Things like slavery, the holocaust, the wiping out of the Native Americans, etc, were all founded on the belief at the time that those people weren't really human or weren't *as* human... and therefore they didn't posses basic human rights. Some of the worst atrocities and crimes against humanity throughout history were done based on the notion that certain groups shouldn't be counted as human beings. I guess we must have a tendency to do that, because it is something that has happened since as far back as we know history. It's a road and a type of thinking that we need to strive to turn away from as we become more civilized and gain a better understanding of the dignity of human life.

And where are you getting that all humans have a right to life from?  That's essentially the same claim in a different form.  If fetuses don't have a right to life, then not all humans have a right to life.  Since both are essentially equivalent, neither can be justification for the other without begging the question.  So, in essence, this is nothing more than saying that fetuses have a right to life simply because you say so.  I'm sorry, but that's not good enough.  And I haven't disputed that the fetus is human at all.  That alone doesn't get you to fetuses having a right to life.  It's a common pro-life argument, but it's little more than trying to smuggle your assumptions in by pretending that being human in some sense means you have a right to life.  But that is the very issue at stake, so you can't use one to justify the other.  And your latter statement is blatant poisoning of the well, implying that anyone who thinks differently than you do is somehow defective.

Are you a moral nihilist or relativist (or something else)?

I don't see how that's relevant, Steve.
[Image: signature%20The-Ascension-of-Iweko.jpg]
The following 2 users Like Dānu's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus, TheGentlemanBastard
Reply
#36

Finally opening up about abortion on this forum
There are laws that make it illegal to force people to donate blood even if it saves another person's life....because in civilized society people have autonomy over what happens to their bodies.  No one can be forced to give up a kidney or bone marrow.  Even when you have an operation, any left over tissue or cells cannot be used for experiments without your expressed written permission.   This is what autonomy is all about.  Without it our bodies aren't our own anymore.
                                                         T4618
The following 5 users Like Dancefortwo's post:
  • julep, Mark, Alan V, Jenny, Tres Leches
Reply
#37

Finally opening up about abortion on this forum
Just make me Grand Overlord of the planet, I'll sort it all out.
The following 2 users Like no one's post:
  • Alan V, Gawdzilla Sama
Reply
#38

Finally opening up about abortion on this forum
(05-16-2019, 05:58 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(05-16-2019, 05:26 PM)Catholic_Lady Wrote:
(05-16-2019, 05:14 PM)Dānu Wrote: Where are you getting that a fetus has a right to live from?

From the same place that all humans have the right to life. 

Things like slavery, the holocaust, the wiping out of the Native Americans, etc, were all founded on the belief at the time that those people weren't really human or weren't *as* human... and therefore they didn't posses basic human rights. Some of the worst atrocities and crimes against humanity throughout history were done based on the notion that certain groups shouldn't be counted as human beings. I guess we must have a tendency to do that, because it is something that has happened since as far back as we know history. It's a road and a type of thinking that we need to strive to turn away from as we become more civilized and gain a better understanding of the dignity of human life.

I think equivocating fetuses with adult humans granted the panoply of rights is a mistake. While inside the mother's body, I think the bodily autonomy of an adult trumps the "rights" of a potential human.

If you're going to go with outlawing abortions, at some point you'll need to legally address pregnant mothers who don't maintain lifestyles optimal to the fetal development. What if they don't eat right? Should they then face legal charges as well, because they're depriving humans of a right to food? Would you charge a gravid mother with negligent homicide if she causes an auto accident which results in her miscarriage? Because if you're going to treat the fetus as a fully-entitled human, you're going to have to address these issues, and sell them to voting adults.

Insisting that every woman carry every pregnancy to term, or as close to it as nature allows, by definition subjugates the mother's rights to the fetus. In that sense, it is saying that the woman is less human than the fetus she bears.

First, subjugate is the wrong word--it is unnecessarily pejorative. Subordinate is the more accurate term. Second, that logic about "less human" is nonsense (and that is being nice). By that logic, anything that restrict an action (laws for example) make you "less human". You are simply redefining what it means to be human.

Quote:Given that conundrum, I myself think that the living, breathing mother should have more say than an abstract valuation assigned to the fetus.

I regard bodily autonomy as the single most important right a human has. The rights of a fetus, which by definition is not autonomous, should not be able to trump that.

On what foundation is the right to "bodily autonomy" based on? Be specific. Your answer just asserts one right and denies another. Throwing around the word "rights" requires you to have a system that grants them. You need reasons to support these assertions or it is just your opinion.
Reply
#39

Finally opening up about abortion on this forum
(05-16-2019, 07:47 PM)Dānu Wrote:
(05-16-2019, 07:18 PM)SteveII Wrote:
(05-16-2019, 05:34 PM)Dānu Wrote: And where are you getting that all humans have a right to life from?  That's essentially the same claim in a different form.  If fetuses don't have a right to life, then not all humans have a right to life.  Since both are essentially equivalent, neither can be justification for the other without begging the question.  So, in essence, this is nothing more than saying that fetuses have a right to life simply because you say so.  I'm sorry, but that's not good enough.  And I haven't disputed that the fetus is human at all.  That alone doesn't get you to fetuses having a right to life.  It's a common pro-life argument, but it's little more than trying to smuggle your assumptions in by pretending that being human in some sense means you have a right to life.  But that is the very issue at stake, so you can't use one to justify the other.  And your latter statement is blatant poisoning of the well, implying that anyone who thinks differently than you do is somehow defective.

Are you a moral nihilist or relativist (or something else)?

I don't see how that's relevant, Steve.

Well, it could be construed that you believe that humans do not have right to life. Or, are you just attempting to get her to back up a step and prove the assumption?
Reply
#40

Finally opening up about abortion on this forum
There ya go. Bodily autonomy / integrity.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/...ore-reader

The skins cells on my arm are "human life". Are they in some protected class ?
The following 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post:
  • Alan V, Dancefortwo
Reply
#41

Finally opening up about abortion on this forum
(05-16-2019, 08:11 PM)SteveII Wrote:
(05-16-2019, 07:47 PM)Dānu Wrote:
(05-16-2019, 07:18 PM)SteveII Wrote: Are you a moral nihilist or relativist (or something else)?

I don't see how that's relevant, Steve.

Well, it could be construed that you believe that humans do not have right to life. Or, are you just attempting to get her to back up a step and prove the assumption?

If it were so construed, then one would be making a straw man argument. Are you making a straw man argument?

And I'm not asking her to "prove" anything. I'd just like to know why and how she draws such a conclusion given that it appears that it is not and has never been universally recognized that all forms of human life have an absolute right to continued existence. I haven't seen her really establish a foundation and until she does, the best I can do is speculate on the source of her conclusion.

I'll also point out that asking whether I'm a moral nihilist or a relativist seems like nothing more than a prelude to an ad hominem. This isn't about me at all at this point.
[Image: signature%20The-Ascension-of-Iweko.jpg]
The following 2 users Like Dānu's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus, Fireball
Reply
#42

Finally opening up about abortion on this forum
The bottom line for me is that, as odious as it may be to kill a fetus, it is also odious to impose gestation on just one party in the sex that led to it. Many who oppose abortion don’t even care if the accidental mother was a willing participant in that sex.  So long as that is part of the pro life agenda then I’m simply pro a woman’s right to choose - full stop.  

And now I am finished with this thread. Agree to disagree is as far as we get as usual on this subject.
"Talk nonsense, but talk your own nonsense, and I'll kiss you for it. To go wrong in one's own way is better than to go right in someone else's. 
F. D.
The following 2 users Like Mark's post:
  • Deesse23, Fireball
Reply
#43

Finally opening up about abortion on this forum
(05-16-2019, 08:11 PM)SteveII Wrote:
(05-16-2019, 07:47 PM)Dānu Wrote:
(05-16-2019, 07:18 PM)SteveII Wrote: Are you a moral nihilist or relativist (or something else)?

I don't see how that's relevant, Steve.

Well, it could be construed that you believe that humans do not have right to life. Or, are you just attempting to get her to back up a step and prove the assumption?

An embryo is not a human. The mother is.
[Image: color%5D%5Bcolor=#333333%5D%5Bsize=small%5D%5Bfont=T...ans-Serif%5D]
The following 7 users Like Dom's post:
  • Alan V, Jenny, Dancefortwo, Thumpalumpacus, Tres Leches, The Kerbinator, leerob
Reply
#44

Finally opening up about abortion on this forum
I think that one can agree that even if the embryo or fetus is human, it is not necessarily human in the same way with regard to all relevant attributes, so saying that it is human, doesn't in and of itself establish that it is due the same consideration as a born human being. That simply would not follow.
[Image: signature%20The-Ascension-of-Iweko.jpg]
The following 3 users Like Dānu's post:
  • julep, Thumpalumpacus, Deesse23
Reply
#45

Finally opening up about abortion on this forum
(05-16-2019, 06:45 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: However, a clump of cells with no brain, and not even a neural tube, is not a person. It's a *potential* person. 
Granting the same status to that clump as an aware human is just stupid.  

I agree.  The idea that zygotes, embryos, or even early-stage fetuses are "babies" is incorrect.  Teenagers don't get the same rights or considerations as adults, children even less, babies less, fetuses less, embryos less, and zygotes none at all.  Nothing about this is black-and-white; it's a nice progression of gray.  Unfortunately we have to arbitrarily draw the line somewhere.

Yes, cells are human in the sense that my blood is human, and other cells could potentially become humans with cloning technology.  But such cells get no say either.

Killing babies is sickening and wrong, and there are laws against it.  But that's not what abortions are.  To over-simplify this topic is unjust to the people who understand how complex it really is.  That's why it must be the woman's decision.  She knows her own circumstances.
The following 6 users Like Alan V's post:
  • julep, Dancefortwo, Vera, Thumpalumpacus, Tres Leches, Deesse23
Reply
#46

Finally opening up about abortion on this forum
(05-16-2019, 06:44 PM)Catholic_Lady Wrote:
(05-16-2019, 06:04 PM)Mark Wrote: First of all I admit that the whole business of abortion is regrettable and I doubt if anyone has ever gotten one who didn't feel some remorse even if their overall best judgement was on the side of going through with it.

That said, I don't think the lives of fetuses are on par with those of us who have been born.  We've reached a level of self sufficiency which makes the taking of our lives harder to justify, though the law may determine that threshold has been reached depending on what transgression I may have committed.  The lives of our fetuses are more on the level of the lives of our pets in that they are our dependents.  That doesn't mean we are free to abuse them and the law reflects that.  Harming either our pets or fetuses is more a matter of policy than rights.  They have the rights we wish to bestow on them as they are unable to understand what is at stake and unable to speak for themselves.

You mentioned feminism and that is relevant here.  Men and women are both motivated by their bodies natural urges toward sex.  We hope to use good judgement in situations where sex may ensue but we don't always.  Currently the disincentive for women to risk sex is much higher than it is for men, especially in states which make abortion illegal.  When it comes to what the law says we may or may not do with our own bodies, we wish to be as unrestrictive as possible.  We also expect that such restrictions affect everyone equally.  Prohibition on abortion can never be made equitable between the sexes.  I just can't be.

While regrettable abortions may be deemed necessary for the health or well being of the mother.  If an unwanted pregnancy should occur at a time that a woman is unwilling to undergo the inconvenience of pregnancy and parenting, I feel her wishes must be respected.  I don't want the law to make that imposition on my behalf.

In reference to your second paragraph: 

I don't see, logically, how level of self sufficiency should determine whether or not a human being has a right to life. I don't see how one thing has to do with the other. There are people who are sick, disabled, etc, who need constant, round the clock care. I am just now, with all my research, learning how much a new born is going to need me, and how completely helpless they are (Joelle is much easier to care for while she's in my womb than she will be when she's out lol). A baby born premature? Even more so, as they need tubes and oxygen masks hooked up to them for months in order to survive. I think you and I can both agree that sick people, newborns, and premature babies all have a right to life, and that taking away their life without their consent isn't something that *we* have a right to do. They are also our dependents, but that doesn't make them less worthy of the fundamental right to life. 

That's why I think the notion that the right to life being dependent on self sufficiency falls apart. Not a single one of us are self sufficient when we are born, and chances are we will be old and sick one day, and need special care. 

As for the rest, I hope I don't come off like I'm undermining how difficult pregnancy is. I know a little bit about that myself lol. Luckily, pregnancy is temporary - nine months. And much less permanent than a death, which is what abortion comes out to.  

I can't speak to how difficult parenthood will be, but from what I've been reading, it's gonna be the hardest thing I'll ever do. Luckily, there are many, many wonderful people ready to adopt babies, if the biological mother doesn't want to, or can't, take on the role of parenthood. I've looked into this quite a bit - seriously, the demand is much higher than the supply, and couples wait for *years* to finally get an adopted baby. 

Again, not to say that any of this is easy on the woman who finds herself in a crisis pregnancy. (My mother was one of them when she was a teenager.) But we are weighing both sides here. Pregnancy is hard, but it is temporary. While death is permanent. Parenthood is hard, but there are many people waiting to take on that role if the biological parents cannot.

Let's assume a fetus is a person. What constitutes a person though, and what does a fetus have that makes it person? Is it the heartbeat, like one of the recent state-level laws says? How do you feel about "pulling the plug" on a brain-dead person who still has a heartbeat?
"If a person gave away your body to some passerby, you’d be furious. Yet, you hand over your mind to anyone who comes along, so they may abuse you, leaving it disturbed and troubled — have you no shame in that?" 

The following 3 users Like Aegon's post:
  • Alan V, Deesse23, adey67
Reply
#47

Finally opening up about abortion on this forum
(05-16-2019, 06:44 PM)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I don't see, logically, how level of self sufficiency should determine whether or not a human being has a right to life. I don't see how one thing has to do with the other. There are people who are sick, disabled, etc, who need constant, round the clock care.  

The difference is between who has responsibility.

If someone needs 24 hour care we don't force a particular person to sacrifice there own life to sustain that life even if its a relative.

By denying an abortion the state is forcing a woman to give 24 hour care.
The following 6 users Like madog's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus, Tres Leches, Deesse23, Szuchow, adey67, leerob
Reply
#48

Finally opening up about abortion on this forum
Several human organs can be kept alive outside their deceased host in many cases for hours.  
Hearts and lungs can be kept viable for transplantation for six hours, a pancreas or liver for
12 hours, and kidneys for 30 hours. There is no medical science known to man that could
keep a 6-week-old embryo alive for even a millisecond outside the uterus. Human foetuses
need at least 21 weeks gestation before becoming viable.  Also, 18 to 25 weeks is considered
the earliest stage at which the lower boundary of sentience can be determined, although
30 weeks is considered the norm.

To add some perspective, this image is a 6-week-old embryo resulting from a ruptured ectopic pregnancy—not a termination.

Show ContentSpoiler:
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
The following 4 users Like SYZ's post:
  • Alan V, Tres Leches, Dancefortwo, leerob
Reply
#49

Finally opening up about abortion on this forum
I remember about ten years ago, in Peru, an eight year old girl was forced to carry her baby to term. Babies having babies because old men make the rules.
  [Image: pirates.gif] Dog  
Reply
#50

Finally opening up about abortion on this forum
If someone can remember who said this first, because I seem to remember it being said by a member on the old forum, and I want that person getting credit for saying it first, but...


A building is burning down. You have time to save one thing, and one thing only.

Do you save the box of a hundred embryos, or do you save the singular living breathing crying baby left in it's crib...

Leave the embryos, huh? Dodgy
[Image: adoplu242c8.png]
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)