Abortion.

[PippinTook]

I am totally fascinated at the tact everyone here has. I'm adoring the theology and beleif threads, I love this type of discussion. The entmoot rocks and therefore I felt safe to present this thread, I hope it hasn't been worn out.

How do you feel about abortion? Do you think it is killing babies? Do you feel that by not allowing pregnant women to abort their babies we are taking away a right? Do you believe that that baby has a life that can be allowed to go one or taken away?

I am very interested in what you all think, so have at it. I'll state my beleifs on it later, I'd like to start by asking the above questions first.

[Starr Polish]

I'm going to guess that since you used the word baby instead of fetus you're pro-life...but that's JUST a guess.

I'm against abortions "of convenience," but believe it should be a woman's choice if the child is the result of rape or incest, or if it's a life threatening pregnancy (more specifically, tubal pregnancy...can't think of the technical term right now).

[PippinTook]

*grins* Give that lady a prize!

Yeah, pro-life here. Was hoping to keep my beleifs in before I heard some others, but looks like I gave myself away

I've got a whole lot more sympathy for women who have been raped and want to abort their baby than for, like you said, women who do it for the convenience. It seems to me, however, that if a woman who is only getting an abortion because it is convenient for her, that baby should not be aborted, right? Therefore, that baby will be born and grow up to be a person.
But, what about the baby of the raped woman? Is it less of a baby because of what brought it about? I don't think we should cast away life because a terrible thing happened to make life begin.

[Linaewen]

Originally Posted by PippinTook

But, what about the baby of the raped woman? Is it less of a baby because of what brought it about? I don't think we should cast away life because a terrible thing happened to make life begin.

But you have to consider the mother's plight as well. Only she knows what it'd be like to be forced to carry the baby of the rapist. I imagine there would be much anguish either way, but she probably feels that she cannot remain pregnant in such circumstances.

[PippinTook]

That's true, it would be torture to think about it, and you'd be reminded of it all the time. But I still think that's not a legitimate enough reason to abort the baby. Some prices have to be paid for life, I guess you could say. I in no way can come close to identifying with or justifying the pain that woman has to go through, but I still stand by my beleifs that life is life and we shouldn't mess with it.

[Insidious Rex]

Do you support capital punishment? war?

[Starr Polish]

Originally Posted by PippinTook

That's true, it would be torture to think about it, and you'd be reminded of it all the time. But I still think that's not a legitimate enough reason to abort the baby. Some prices have to be paid for life, I guess you could say. I in no way can come close to identifying with or justifying the pain that woman has to go through, but I still stand by my beleifs that life is life and we shouldn't mess with it.

So the trauma and stress of rape should be made worse by a pregnancy? Particularly a pregnancy that is probably going to be high risk, due to the stress the mother has already undergone?

Hmm.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Linaewen

But you have to consider the mother's plight as well. Only she knows what it'd be like to be forced to carry the baby of the rapist. I imagine there would be much anguish either way, but she probably feels that she cannot remain pregnant in such circumstances.

I feel as though if that were the case, there should be some mechanism for handling it. Perhaps it should be possible, if her case is established in court as rape, that she should be able to put the child up for adoption rather then keep him. I know that sounds awful, and it is awful. However, I cannot accept the idea that it is fine for us to kill infants, simply because we don't want to handle taking care of them. Sometimes there's no responsibility on the part of the parent, such as rape. Yet that doesn't take away the child's right to live.

Originally Posted by Starr Polish

So the trauma and stress of rape should be made worse by a pregnancy? Particularly a pregnancy that is probably going to be high risk, due to the stress the mother has already undergone?

Hmm.

The only argument that I can see as sufficient for saying abortion should be allowed is the argument that the fetus is not a living child, yet. If you say it's just a united bunch of cells that isn't resembling a human in any very close way, then you probably have sufficient reason to justify to yourself supporting women's right to choose, on the matter of abortion. However, if you believe that the fetus is actually a living human being, then we're talking on totally different planes here. I cannot conceive of a stressful pregnancy being even close to sufficient reason to kill a child. No way. Just . . . no way. I don't believe that parents should be allowed to kill their 3 year olds for any reason. The child in the womb is simply younger then they are. They're younger then I am. Yet if they're just as alive and real as I am, even if less mature and old, then it is obviously wrong to kill them. A one year old child is less developed then I am, but just as much a human being. We put behind bars those women that dump their one year old children in dumpsters. If you believe that the fetus qualifies as a human being, then abortion for any reason is just completely, obviously, utterly morally unjustifiable.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Do you support capital punishment? war?

Totally different issues. 100% different issues. Capital punishment is for criminals that have done major offenses against society. There is guilt and justice involved. An extremely young child is not guilty, and justice should be involved, only it isn't. People kill the child despite the fact that they're not guilty, because they're an inconvenience. A severe inconvenience in the scenario Starr Polish brought up, but we're still leaping from killing only because of justice to killing because of convenience. That's a huge, and in my opinion, reprehensible leap. The only way that it can be justified is by dehumanizing the fetus. If you believe scientific research that shows that the fetus is clearly not yet the equivalent of human life, then I respect your stance on abortion. Yet if you think that convenience is a good enough reason for destroying human life . . . I just have absolutely 0 respect for that view. It seems to qualify as a criminal stance to a very high degree.

Politics also you bring up. Wars vary from one to another. Sometimes when we go to war, it is good, and sometimes when we go to war, it is bad. Most of the time some good and bad is done. So referring to war in the same line of thinking as abortion is useless. They're utterly different subjects. I might support one war or go against another, but all children that are born are clearly innocent of all crimes, and killing them is ALWAYS wrong.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I'm not sure how I feel about abortion. But I sincerely doubt that a woman would have an abortion for convenience, ie. as a form of birth control. It's an extremely painful and I imagine heart-wrenching procedure, with serious medical implications. The side-effects can be very rough.

They certainly can be. What is it, a 95% increase in likelihood of breast cancer? Not everyone has access to that type of information, though.

Most abortions are done because of convenience, in my opinion. Many teenagers can't handle the social reprecussions of being a single mother. Many teenagers won't face the massive problems of raising a child, when they themselves are so young and ill-prepared. These are all matters of convenience, the killing of one person because the someone else doesn't want to deal with it. The abortion of the child of a raped woman also I'd call a matter of convenience.

I don't think that abortions should be allowed to take place in any of these cases. The only situation where I'm not completely certain is where it's actually causing a strong risk that the mother might die. Then it's an either/or, one life or another.

The other situations are very hard, I realize. They are extremely harsh on the teenage girl who suddenly has to deal with a child they're utterly unprepared for. The child could very likely be growing up in poverty, with a mother who's tearing her hair out struggling to provide. The single mother's future also is in serious jeopardy. It would be incredibly hard for the mother to have a successful life, for most of these girls are forced to step out of highschool early. Without the education, good jobs are difficult to handle.

So I understand these massive stresses. However, think about it. In a way, this is saying it should be legal for a poverty stricken person to shoot another person for his money. The money totting individual has done nothing against the beggar, but the beggar can end his situation by shooting the wealthy person and taking what he has.

Women who get abortions are doing something very similar. They're killing an innocent child in order to keep their current situation (whether it's with money, school or society) stable. Murder shouldn't be legalized for the beggar, should it? Then why should murder be legalized for parents?


It might be possible to set up agencies that help single parents. Perhaps having a better adoption system prepared also would be helpful. I think even homosexual adoption is preferable over abortion.

I've been realizing more and more lately how abortion is actually a desperately important issue in the United States. If the fetuses are real children, as I believe they are, then we're butchering millions of human beings! It makes us seem a pagan nation in the extreme, not all that different from Adolf Hitler. He killed off the mentally impaired, the physically impaired, political dissidents and Jews. His "undesirables" that were "burdening the nation", he killed. Whether he was right or wrong about them being responsible for burdening the nation is not the point. He had no moral right to kill those people. It was extremely wicked.

The evidence is that abortion is far from painless to the fetus also, I've heard. This is getting a little out of my line, for it gets into evidence and I haven't researched this stuff so well as I should. I talked with a very knowledgable person on the subject once, though. From him, I learned that the heartbeat is the first thing that's detected of the fetus. Directly after the heart is formed, the brain is. Therefore from the very first moments of the child's being detected, we have a living, thinking human being on our hands. When an abortion takes place, the pain of the child is shown to be worse then that which the mother would have in a natural birth.

Unfortunately, this last paragraph I cannot effectively defend. I'm simply repeating what I heard from a knowledgable person who has studied this subject and taught about it to others.


All right, I'm aware that these last two posts are not so respectful as perhaps they should be. They are hardline, and not politically correct. They are extreme, and I'm sorry if I've insulted people in these posts. If I have insulted you, reader, because of your views on the subject, that'll just have to be the way it is this time. I do not have respect for views that say killing children is all right. Only if you believe a fetus is very biologically different from a child can I respect a stance in favor of abortion; this is because of my moral principles. So anyhow, there we are. Now I'm really tired. Today I've been a little irritating to people around me at home, because of being tired from staying up late last night and being woken up early this morning. The Lord bless you all.

~Lief

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Totally different issues. 100% different issues. Capital punishment is for criminals that have done major offenses against society. There is guilt and justice involved. An extremely young child is not guilty, and justice should be involved, only it isn't. People kill the child despite the fact that they're not guilty, because they're an inconvenience. A severe inconvenience in the scenario Starr Polish brought up, but we're still leaping from killing only because of justice to killing because of convenience. That's a huge, and in my opinion, reprehensible leap. The only way that it can be justified is by dehumanizing the fetus. If you believe scientific research that shows that the fetus is clearly not yet the equivalent of human life, then I respect your stance on abortion. Yet if you think that convenience is a good enough reason for destroying human life . . . I just have absolutely 0 respect for that view. It seems to qualify as a criminal stance to a very high degree.

Politics also you bring up. Wars vary from one to another. Sometimes when we go to war, it is good, and sometimes when we go to war, it is bad. Most of the time some good and bad is done. So referring to war in the same line of thinking as abortion is useless. They're utterly different subjects. I might support one war or go against another, but all children that are born are clearly innocent of all crimes, and killing them is ALWAYS wrong.

I ask some simple questions and i get a loud speech?

One could certainly make the argument that a grown adult is more of a human (certainly in science's eyes and perhaps even in gods "eyes") then a 3 week old group of cells. Ill let you decide what you think about this. But that being said, Ive always felt its a double standard to be AGAINST abortion as a rule based on the fact that all human life is precious and one shouldnt kill and yet still be pro war and pro capital punishment etc. Theres a lot of gung ho republicans who feel that aborting a fetis is morally repugnant in the highest and yet feel we should rush off and invade any two bit country who looks sideways at us because we need to be "tough" and not "weak". Personally, I think there ARE reasons to kill sometimes so Im certainly not included in that small but noble group of people who are consistent across the board in their THOU SHALT NOT KILL approach to life. I respect people like that a great deal actually.

What it usually comes down to is not pro abortion or anti abortion but WHEN you think that group have cells has become a viable human being that really shouldn’t be messed with. For many it’s the 2nd trimester for others its birth or conception (some even think using any sort of contraception to KEEP a female from becoming impregnated is the equivalent of murder). So when is it for you? Does anyone here actually believe abortions should never be allowed once conception has happened?

[me9996]

Frankly, abortion is killing a human being, so unless it saves at least one life I'm against it.

That's my entire opinion. Not going to change.

Simple, but the simple things are often the truest.

That's it, and why one would kill another human being for fashion is almost beond me.

[klatukatt]

In a lot of cases abortion can save lives.

A lot of girls that get pregnant are WAY TOO YOUNG to have children and should get and abortion before MANY LIVES are ruined.
Their life, the child's life, and anyone else that they are dependent on.

In some cases, abortion is an act of mercy so the child doesn't have to grow up in an unloving environment.


I'm not going to argue about a fetus being alive, becaue you obviously believe it is and I respect that.

EDIT: I forgot to add the part where some females have health issues and birthing a baby can kill them, not to mention the child.

[me9996]

Originally Posted by klatukatt

In a lot of cases abortion can save lives.

Sorry if I gave you the impression that I thought that it never saved lives.

What I ment was that when it saved lives it would be good...
Otherwise it's just killing. Once a being of any sort starts forming there it is: life.

[Rána Eressëa]

Interrupting current debate to drop off my opinion.

I support abortion, though from my personal view it's more like a necessary evil of sorts than anything else.

In societies throughout history, women were and are constantly being judged by their ability to give birth over anything else they may be capable of. In the current equality debate that's been going on for so long, women will essentially never be men's equals because of their ability to bear life/pregnancy/etc. For societal reasons like this, I support it because it gives women a chance in today's society to be more than just mothers. Shallow reason? Perhaps.

Also, a woman's body is her own right. I also support it because until that life inside the mother does not use the mother's body as a host necessary for survival, it serves a similar purpose that a parasite does. This is NOT TO SAY that fetuses are parasites, merely that they CANNOT survive without a HOST until birth. Until that life can support itself as a separate living being, the host should have rights over the life that depends, at the most basic level possible involving bodily functions, entirely and utterly on it for survival.

Thirdly, overpopulation and the fact that there are so many unwanted and impoverished children in the world. When people sit down and complain about abortion without standing up to attempt to make the lives of those who are already suffering any better, it feels a lot like, "Okay, let's have more tortured people in the world. We already don't have enough of them that we can't take care of." Letting more unwanted children into the world feels worse than abortion to me, but I have different personal views than other people. I think all morals are relative to one's belief system, and mine is going to be vastly different from other people's systems.

From a logical and detached view, there are plenty of reasons to support abortion. The only problem with most people is they can't be logical and detached from it to make a sensible deduction on the matter.

Since I think everything is relative, though, really? It all depends on the person, and everyone's going to be different in their views.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Rána Eressëa

In societies throughout history, women were and are constantly being judged by their ability to give birth over anything else they may be capable of. In the current equality debate that's been going on for so long, women will essentially never be men's equals because of their ability to bear life/pregnancy/etc. For societal reasons like this, I support it because it gives women a chance in today's society to be more than just mothers. Shallow reason? Perhaps.

Being able to bear children is just one of the genetic differences between men and women. Men and women also are mentally different, men more masculine and women more feminine, men more aggressive and women more nurturing. I have several arguments and pieces of evidence for this being true that I've presented in the Gender Issues Thread.

Neither femininity nor masculinity is better than the other. Both are essential and complementary parts of the human race.

I think men and women already have equality just about everywhere in modern society. Child bearing isn't any big change in that.

Plus, as you mentioned, it's a kind of shallow reason for killing someone .

Originally Posted by Rána Eressëa

Also, a woman's body is her own right. I also support it because until that life inside the mother does not use the mother's body as a host necessary for survival, it serves a similar purpose that a parasite does. This is NOT TO SAY that fetuses are parasites, merely that they CANNOT survive without a HOST until birth. Until that life can support itself as a separate living being, the host should have rights over the life that depends, at the most basic level possible involving bodily functions, entirely and utterly on it for survival.

This argument justifies our killing anyone in a hospital who is on life support. They depend, "at the most basic level possible involving bodily functions, entirely and utterly on [us] for survival." The fact that one depends upon someone else does not make one any less valuable.

Originally Posted by Rána Eressëa

Thirdly, overpopulation and the fact that there are so many unwanted and impoverished children in the world. When people sit down and complain about abortion without standing up to attempt to make the lives of those who are already suffering any better, it feels a lot like, "Okay, let's have more tortured people in the world. We already don't have enough of them that we can't take care of." Letting more unwanted children into the world feels worse than abortion to me, but I have different personal views than other people.

So would you rather die than be poor?

Originally Posted by Rána Eressëa

I think all morals are relative to one's belief system, and mine is going to be vastly different from other people's systems.

Stalin purposely and systematically starved to death many millions of his civilians because they were holding back the industrial development of his country by not cooperating with his economic plans. His morals were just relative to his belief system. They must have been valid too, right?

Originally Posted by Rána Eressëa

From a logical and detached view, there are plenty of reasons to support abortion. The only problem with most people is they can't be logical and detached from it to make a sensible deduction on the matter.

So people should be logical and detached when considering killing other people? They shouldn't allow compassion to enter their thinking, too?

By this reasoning, Stalin had it all right. I bet he was being "logical and detached," when he decided to starve to death millions of the citizens of his country. The act greatly benefitted the economy of his country (though it went downhill anyway in the end, because of the nuclear arms race). Indeed, I very much wish that Stalin had been less detached from what he was doing, when deciding whether or not to kill humans.

Originally Posted by Rána Eressëa

Since I think everything is relative, though, really? It all depends on the person, and everyone's going to be different in their views.

True. And this line of reasoning leaves anything and everything that anyone might do completely justified. Provided people can justify their actions according to their belief systems, they can validly do whatever they please. And there's nothing wrong with it, because according to their belief systems, it's fine. No matter how twisted and sick their actions might seem to an outsider.

So Hitler and Stalin were just fine. They were acting in perfectly valid ways, according to their belief systems, so they were fine and we should stop harping on them for their murdering tens of millions of people.

You see, this is the essential problem with religious liberalism. If ethics depend solely on people's individual views of reality, and they can validly make them what they want for themselves, then anything goes. Nothing is good and nothing is evil.

[Tessar]

Locking this thread and creating a new one.