Why do you believe Abortion is right or wrong?
Hello, fellow hubbers! So, this is something that's been bothering me for a while. First, I'd like to open that I am not a christian or religious person. I am simply me, a person trying to understand what people's stances on the matter and why it is a constant debate. To me, the answer is obvious, and this is just me. Maybe it is my christian background, but I don't think so. I think it is something that would not sit well with me even if I hadn't ever had that worldview.
Personally, I can't stand the argument that women use "it's my body." As soon as that egg is fertilized, there is another being that is about to start growing inside of you. There's no way to get around that. It's going to be another human being. At this stage, certainly, no one knows if it's going to be a girl or a boy or a hermaphrodite or have down syndrome, sickle cell, or any other problem or be perfectly perfect. But it is not YOUR body that you are keeping from being destroyed. It is something that in 9 months will become another little person.
To be able to conveniently destroy it just because it's inconvenient to you upsets me. The only reason I am indeed pro-choice is because everyone has the right to make a choice and should not have that choice taken away, BUT, I am not pro-abortion, because that potential baby did not have a choice. You want to be happily sexually active. A possible consequence of sexual activity is a baby. Therefore, I believe it is your responsibility to carry it through to term. Surely adoption would be the better choice? and exercise while you're pregnant and use shea and cocoa butter for the stretch marks and work out afterwards and voila! Back to before baby weight.
And if you don't like the foster and adoption systems they have today, why not attempt and fight to fix them so that the children being adopted are so into healthy homes? This is a subject that really bothers me, and so I think the answer I really want to hear is from those who believe abortion is ok, but everyone is welcome to comment.A fertilized egg is not a person. It is a cell. When you kill a cell, you are killing a living thing, indeed, you are killing a human thing, but you are not killing a human person.
If you cut off someone's hand, the hand, unattached to the body, will die. That is a human hand, and it has unique human DNA. Thus you have killed a human thing. But the hand is not a human person.
An embryo is like a hand, or any other organ in the body. Remove the embryo from the body (or similar environment) and it dies. An embryo is inherently incapable of existing independently on its own. This is an indication it is not a human person.
A premature baby, however, is a human person, because it is capable of surviving on its own, outside the womb. That is why later-term abortions should not be allowed.
This is the problem with the black/white definition of personhood. It is nice and simple, but life is not always simple. Some things in life are more complicated. This is one of them. There is a continuum of development from egg cell to embryo to fetus to baby.
Convenience, you will note, has nothing to do with anything I've said.Convenience had nothing to do with what you said, exactly... You simply explained, and I'm not sure how much I agree with the conclusions drawn from the explanation of the process, why the zygote or embryp is not a "person" yet.
"There is a continuum of development from egg cell to embryo to fetus to baby." Yes there is, that is the process of development. It will folow this path, that is the inevitability of it and that's where I find a problem.
It doesn't change the fact that Abortion makes it convenient for women to have sex and not face the consequences of it.
I don't necessarily believe in the whole God spark idea.
However, I like and agree with the point that stclair jack made:
"when a woman discovers she is pregnant with a child that she has been hoping and praying for,.... its a child..... yet,.... if a woman finds herself pregnant when she wasnt planning on it, maybe not prepared for it,..... its refered to as an embreo,... or a small collection of cells,... a choice,...."
A detached hand and a zygote are two VERY different things. While the hand is a part of you, and grows with you, it will NEVER grow apart from you. A zygote, if given the chance to grow, is much more likely to be so, unless there are complications and it is a still born. Your hand has the same exact DNA as you, but a zygote does not. These cells are human. why does it have to be a full fledge "person," whatever that is, for us to consider it wrong for us to kill it.That is a bit like saying it is inevitable that a baby grows into an old man. Given the right conditions and environment, yes, a baby will grow into an old man. But the baby is not an old man. And there is no guarantee it will become one.
"While the hand is a part of you, and grows with you, it will NEVER grow apart from you."
Neither will the zygote. A zygote cannot grow apart from its mother's body.
"Your hand has the same exact DNA as you, but a zygote does not."
Twins have the exact same DNA except for insignificant differences. Does that mean one is more of a person than the other? Or that neither is as full a person as one who is not a twin?
Anyway, what is so special about DNA? DNA is a collection of chemicals. Give me a laboratory and the right chemicals, and I can make enough DNA to populate the earth with unique humans many times over.
I would say there is something more that makes a person a person. A mind, a consciousness, or at least the capacity thereof, as well as the ability to exist on its own. To think and breathe on its own. To act on its own.
You need to explain why a collection of lifeless chemicals is inherently special. Why is it any more special than the unique collection of chemicals in a grain of sand, or any other inanimate matter?
"It doesn't change the fact that Abortion makes it convenient for women to have sex and not face the consequences of it."
And the fact that anti-abortion laws are explicitly concerned only with the "person that is the zygote" does not change the fact that those laws make it very convenient for patriarchies to control women's personal behavior. So we're even
I agreed with you. Above all, I think the choice should belong to the mother and the people involved. We are the outsiders and don't walk in their shoes. We have no right to discuss whether it's right or wrong for them to choose whether or not to keep a baby. Beside, a woman nowaday can find out whether she's pregnant as early as 5 weeks before missed period. Then, she can make up her mind pretty soon. I mean, why are we even debating about whether it's right or wrong. Abortion is an option so people can choose. We have no right to influence it and condemn it as a wrong act. So, what if a 16 years old girl keeps the baby? She'll go on Teenage Mom show? Or her family will have to take on another burden? When someone isn't ready for motherhood, she's not ready. Society shouldn't force a life on the mother and the baby (you think the baby when grown up will like being born from an irresponsible mother? from undesirable circumstances?)
By the way, if the argument is blaming all this on women's heads "avoid consequences...", well, it takes both sperm and egg. If the baby is kept, both father and mother should be responsible, not one-sided. Hence, abortion should be an choice for the couple involved to make, the only responsibility of the society is education and providing a choice, not making judgement on personal lives.
So one's ability to exist outside of any assistance defines one as a person, in regards to fetal development?
What about people in a vegetative state who are on life support? are they not people? Or was your definition of this exclusive to the fetuses?
In a later post, you said this:
"I would say there is something more that makes a person a person. A mind, a consciousness, or at least the capacity thereof, as well as the ability to exist on its own. To think and breathe on its own. To act on its own."
So you are saying that only once the baby is able to live on its own, that it develops that mind, or consciousness. But Does having a mind, or consciousness, have anything to do with being able to exist on one's own? And at what point exactly is that baby able to do so? You mentioned premature babies. Where could you draw the line in that process?
I want to refer to something AThousandWords said:
"when a woman discovers she is pregnant with a child that she has been hoping and praying for,.... its a child..... yet,.... if a woman finds herself pregnant when she wasnt planning on it, maybe not prepared for it,..... its refered to as an embreo,... or a small collection of cells,... a choice,...."
What do you feel about this? Contradiction, adjustment of word choice in respect for the feelings of the mother, something else...?People in a coma are inherently capable of existing independently. Their bodies have that capability. They are inherently capable, but temporarily not capable. By contrast, an embryo is inherently incapable of that by its nature.
"But Does having a mind, or consciousness, have anything to do with being able to exist on one's own?"
I suppose in theory no. But I can't think of any person who has a consciousness that is not also able to exist independently of another body (again, coma patients or paraplegics notwithstanding, given what I said above). In any case, these are separate criteria. Consciousness and independent existence do not definitionally depend on each other, as far as I can see.
There are a number of milestones in fetal development, like the ability to feel pain, the ability to move independently, etc. I am no doctor or expert, but there is a concept of "viability" which refers to its ability to survive outside the womb. So those kinds of things. But it is a spectrum. Babies born before the "viable" threshold can still survive, albeit rarely.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability
"What do you feel about this?"
This is an emotional issue, not a logical or philosophical one. I understand all sorts of emotions are involved for women hoping for a baby, or fearing unwanted pregnancy, or whatever. It is simply their decision to call it one thing or the other depending on how they feel, or what they want. But logically speaking, it is not a "person" until it has those qualities.I find it annoying that people can define things as they see fit for their own convenience. But, we do it all the time... I just think we should be able to draw the line somewhere.
It is drawn. It's YOU who are trying to re-draw that line.
Yeah, Cagsil is right. The definition is pretty clear. It doesn't change based on popularity or anything.
How a pregnant woman refers to her zygote is really irrelevant. I can refer to a car as a tree if I want, but that doesn't mean it is one.It is clear to you because you understand the zygote as simply that, as zygote.
Others do not see it as simply a zygote..
Therefore the definition is not clear unless you also hold certain other beliefs about what makes one human, etc.I would love for somebody to explain to me why a collection of lifeless chemicals qualifies as a human person. Can a puddle of chemicals compose music? Can it smile at me? Can it reach out and shake my hand? Can it dream? Can it desire?
DNA is a code. A code is useless without a software to run it. And software is impossible without hardware.sometimes it has to do with what one believes about soul, spirit, etc. and how it relates to being human.
Supernatural beliefs are not useful for legal or scientific definitions because they cannot be tested, verified or generalized.
That is one worldview. There are others.
It depends on your criteria for evidence, verifiability, etc. It will differ with each person. This will take you into philosophy of science where you delve into cause-effect, empiricism, contingency, etc.I know there are others. Naturalism is the correct one. In just a few centuries, naturalism has enabled us to answer countless questions that supernaturalism could not answer in thousands of years.
No, I did not miss the point. I have dealt with worldview discussions many times. Naturalism is the superior worldview to supernaturalism. Here's a thought experiment for you and everyone else:
Can you imagine that the supernatural world does not exist? Yes, it would mean that only the natural world exists. May or may not be correct, but the point is we can imagine it.
Now, can you imagine the natural world does not exist? No, it's impossible. The closest we can come to imagining that is closing our eyes and picturing total darkness, but even that is an image of this natural world.
Thus naturalism--assuming nothing except the existence of the natural world--is the default state of the human mind.
Anything further than that, anything beyond that, must be legitimated through evidence or logic. But naturalism is the default state of the sentient mind and thus enjoys logical preference/ superiority.That isn't what I was talking about in the post. I was making a different point.
But clearly the relation between a zygote with human DNA and a human adult, is in no way comparable to a car and a tree...
I understand what you are saying. What I question is the certainty of it. You mentioned a "viable threshold." Where is it? At what point? Do we know?
And
"A premature baby, however, is a human person, because it is capable of surviving on its own, outside the womb. That is why later-term abortions should not be allowed." This assumes that one's humanity is based on one's being able to survive outside of the womb. That is what I questioned Isn't the question of what defines a human being much more complex than that? It seems rather arbitrary..."Where is it? At what point? Do we know?"
It's in the Wikipedia article I cited. It's around month 6 and 7. Which is convenient (sorry, A Thousand Words) because by half a year in, I should think most women have decided one way or the other.
I don't think it's arbitrary. I think one of the defining features of an individual person is that he or she is individual. Since we are talking about a process whereby a baby develops and then is separated physically from another body, this seems like a very useful criteria.I still don't think it's very definitive...at 6 or 7 months. And I'm not sure I'd trust Wikipedia. But that's my opinion.
As far as it being arbitrary, scholars and philosophers have argued this topic for centuries and many different theories have emerged. "What makes us human?" I don't think it's possible to favor one philosophy and then assume everyone should accept it...it's just not that simple And yes, I have a philosophy about what makes us human, and that influences my feeling that a child should not be aborted. And I could be wrong. But to be honest, I'd rather err on the side of preserving a possible human with the understanding that it's human , even if I find out later it wasn't human...than to err on the side of killing it with the understanding that it was human and finding out later that it was. But again, that's my personal preference and opinion.
But at this point it boils down to opinions based on a variety of facts and information. I'll drop the subject because I know we aren't going to agree past this point. We don't agree on what makes one human, so any attempt at argument after that would be kind of pointless...Come on. The article cites reputable sources. The same information is found in many more reputable sources.
In any case we can certainly say that at 2 months it is not a person and at 9 months it is. That means there is room for abortion to be acceptable. After that, it's just a question of narrowing it down. Nothing is an exact science.
Yeah, everyone has their opinion. But unfortunately for us, the law has to use a single standard and apply it to everybody.
You say we don't agree, but you haven't actually offered your reasoning. You've just said "I don't agree." Well, okay."Come on. The article cites reputable sources. The same information is found in many more reputable sources."
repuatable, perhaps. The information provided may be accurate as to what the scientist or whoever described actually thinks, but that doesn't mean that what that person thinks is correct. Many different scientists come up with many different conclusions. One article is not representative of all scientific theories and opinions about it.
"In any case we can certainly say that at 2 months it is not a person and at 9 months it is. That means there is room for abortion to be acceptable. After that, it's just a question of narrowing it down. Nothing is an exact science."
You can, based on your own opinion about what makes one human. Not all agree.
"Yeah, everyone has their opinion. But unfortunately for us, the law has to use a single standard and apply it to everybody."
Exactly. So why not use the standard which takes less risk concerning the fetus? If the concept of what makes one human is not clear cut scientifically, then why not default to the one which recognizes the fetus as human? How do they decide?
"You say we don't agree, but you haven't actually offered your reasoning. You've just said "I don't agree." Well, okay"
My reasoning was that the concept of what makes one a human is not clearcut as you present it to be. That's all I was attempting to say.It's not one article. It's the whole body of medical literature. I just gave that one to clarify the point. You can't expect me to list 100 articles from medical journals and textbooks.
If you have a reputable medical source that disagrees with the entire global medical field on the process of embryonic and fetal development, please let us see it.
It is not an "opinion," any more than the atom is an opinion.
"So why not use the standard which takes less risk concerning the fetus?"
Because there is no reason to. Some people may believe that even a "twinkle in a man's eye" constitutes the birth of a human soul. That is their religious belief. They would argue, like you, "why take the chance?" They would say "why not default to the less risky standard and mandate any man who looks at a woman must conceive with her?"
See the problem? It's a slippery slope based on personal beliefs that have no connection to science or reason.
The science is clear cut, or clear enough. It is only people who don't like it that say it is not clear cut.It's not one article. It's the whole body of medical literature. I just gave that one to clarify the point. You can't expect me to list 100 articles from medical journals and textbooks.
If you have a reputable medical source that disagrees with the entire global medical field on the process of embryonic and fetal development, please let us see it.
"It is not an "opinion," any more than the atom is an opinion."
It's based on your opinion about what makes a human a human. That has not been proven.
"So why not use the standard which takes less risk concerning the fetus?"
"Because there is no reason to. Some people may believe that even a "twinkle in a man's eye" constitutes the birth of a human soul. That is their religious belief. They would argue, like you, "why take the chance?" They would say "why not default to the less risky standard and mandate any man who looks at a woman must conceive with her?""
Then there is equally no reason to use the other standard. And I beg to differ, it is not a religious belief.
"See the problem? It's a slippery slope based on personal beliefs that have no connection to science or reason."
You say they don't. many scientists would disagree.
"The science is clear cut, or clear enough. It is only people who don't like it that say it is not clear cut."
To you. Not to all, and not to all scientists.The reason I say it is not a religious belief is because nothing about sperm meeting egg and creating a baby is religious. My concept of that humanity existing at that very moment is not about a "twinkle in someone's eye." It's about sperm meeting egg and creating a child. The difference in what we define as "humanity" is what makes this discussion difficult. I define it differently and it has nothing to do with religion.
You might argue that it's my opinion about what makes a human a human. But fetal viability is not anyone's opinion, it is a fact.
"Then there is equally no reason to use the other standard."
Yes there is. Because it provides more freedom. There must be a good reason--as in murder or theft--to limit someone's freedom. It can't just be because someone has a different opinion.
And perhaps the twinkle in the eye theory, to that person who believes it, is not a religious belief either. They would say the same things you are saying: "why take the risk? Why not default to the less risky standard and mandate any man who looks at a woman must conceive with her?" That is not necessarily a religious belief. But it is their personal opinion.
If you admit that your beliefs or opinions are no better than any other, then you have no reason to advocate for other people's acceptance of it."You might argue that it's my opinion about what makes a human a human. But fetal viability is not anyone's opinion, it is a fact."
Fetal viability is not an opinion. The conclusions about humannity which you draw from it, are. You don't think they are a human at any point before that because you define "human" and "humanity" differently than I do. Simply saying it is fact does not make it so. There are many who will argue what is fact, concerning humanity. That again would drag us into many branches of philosophy.
"Yes there is. Because it provides more freedom. There must be a good reason--as in murder or theft--to limit someone's freedom. It can't just be because someone has a different opinion."
I could just as easily say that mine should be accepted because it saves many babies who are aborted for all the wrong reasons, from getting killed. There must also be a good reason to end life.
And perhaps the twinkle in the eye theory, to that person who believes it, is not a religious belief either. They would say the same things you are saying: "why take the risk? Why not default to the less risky standard and mandate any man who looks at a woman must conceive with her?" That is not necessarily a religious belief. But it is their personal opinion.
This discussion has nothing to do with people who believe that theory. If you are trying to say that my thoughts are religiously based, then you are wrong. If you are saying I'm simply basing my thoughts on my own opinions, then you are by the same token, doing the same because you are basing your thoughts on the assumption that you know what makes someone a human being. That would be your opinion on what makes someone a human being. This question is not easily scientifically verifiable, as indicated by centuries of debate about it in the scientific and philosophical fields.
If you admit that your beliefs or opinions are no better than any other, then you have no reason to advocate for other people's acceptance of it.
I didn't rate my beliefs or opinions as better or worse, in any way, so your statement does not apply. If you feel this way, Then why do you find reason to advocate other people's accepetance of yours. Your answer will be because yours is scientifically correct. But your scientifically correct view is still debated upon in the scientific circles. That's what I'm trying to say. You are saying that your statements about humanity, zygotes, etc. are unquestionably and scientificall correct. That would be to ignore many other scientific and philosophical arguments to the contrary, which may or may not have legitimacy."Simply saying it is fact does not make it so."
Nowhere did I say my definition of humanity is a fact on the order of fetal viability. You questioned the factualness of fetal viability. That is what I responded to.
"I could just as easily say that mine should be accepted because it saves many babies who are aborted for all the wrong reasons, from getting killed. There must also be a good reason to end life."
You are assuming it is ending life. That is your assumption. If you were to argue that your standard should be used by the law, then you would have to explain logically why it is a human person. I have not seen that from you.
"This discussion has nothing to do with people who believe that [twinkle in the eye] theory."
Yes it does. I am providing you with analogy to demonstrate the point. To you, the twinkle in the eye is ridiculous. Why? Why is it ridiculous? The twinkler can use all of the arguments you are making, with the same coherence and legitimacy: to err on the side of life, to not kill unnecessarily, etc.
Ugh, I should not have brought up religion. Just forget I said anything about religion. Twinklers are not religious. The analogy stands.
"If you are saying I'm simply basing my thoughts on my own opinions, then you are by the same token, doing the same..."
But I have (tried to) provide a logical argument based on objective facts. I have not seen that from you.
I made positive assertions, and you questioned them. That is fine. But when I explicate my reasoning, you simply say "I don't agree" or "not everybody agrees." Well, that's true, but that in itself does not constitute a refutation of anything I have said.
The fact that a few people here or there disagree with this or that is irrelevant. Some people believe the earth is flat. That does not mean a flat earth is a legitimate point of view.“Nowhere did I say my definition of humanity is a fact on the order of fetal viability. You questioned the factualness of fetal viability. That is what I responded to.”
Miscommunication. I didn’t question the fact of fetal viability.
“ You are assuming it is ending life. That is your assumption. If you were to argue that your standard should be used by the law, then you would have to explain logically why it is a human person. I have not seen that from you.”
Exactly. I was making that comparison because you assume it Is not ending life, as I assume it is. Therefore you would also have to explain logically why it is not a human person at a particular stage, and is at another. It seems more reasonable to ask that someone do that, given the fact that that zygote does in fact develop and “become” in your words, a human being.
“Yes it does. I am providing you with analogy to demonstrate the point. To you, the twinkle in the eye is ridiculous. Why? Why is it ridiculous? The twinkler can use all of the arguments you are making, with the same coherence and legitimacy: to err on the side of life, to not kill unnecessarily, etc.”
Ugh, I should not have brought up religion. Just forget I said anything about religion. Twinklers are not religious. The analogy stands.”
Lol, “twinklers.” Despite the rather somber nature of this discussion, that made me laugh. Lol.
I was simply saying that your use of the analogy was irrelevant. The reason their argument is ridiculous is because it has nothing to do with the actual conception process, which is the very thing my argument was based upon: sperm meets egg and creates a human. “twinklers” believe something else creates a human…. However, you were not aware of my position because I did not explain that thoroughly. For that I am at fault, and I explained further, below…
“But I have (tried to) provide a logical argument based on objective facts. I have not seen that from you.
I made positive assertions, and you questioned them. That is fine. But when I explicate my reasoning, you simply say "I don't agree" or "not everybody agrees." Well, that's true, but that in itself does not constitute a refutation of anything I have said.”
I made a mistake in not clearly delineating my views: they are spread throughout, but I didn’t take the time to compile them accurately; you are correct, I should have been more clear. As for providing a logical argument based on facts, I have presented them, in the form of the following:
1. A zygote is a human at conception. Therefore, any considerations of factors after birth, during birth, are irrelevant. It is murder to intentionally take life. Whether or not we think the child will have a good life or not, etc. is irrelevant.
2. This view of humanity, however, is disagreed upon because not all believe that human life begins at conception, based on one’s belief about what makes one human.
3. There are many theories about what makes one human; none of which are scientifically verifiable. The zygote develops into what you define as a human being. Therefore it seems more reasonable to assert that we receive proof that the child is not, at some point in this process, a human being. That would require defining what makes someone a human being.
4. What makes someone a human being? It’s very hotly debated in philosophical circles and cannot be scientifically verified. Therefore, in the absence of scientific verification, it is impossible to say that, scientifically, a child is not a human at such a time. It is also impossible for anyone to prove that their theory about what makes a human being, is actually correct.
5. Therefore, without verification about what makes a human a human being, and at what exact point, it would be better to err on the side of preserving possible life. If it is not life, nothing is lost. If it is life, you have preserved it. Abortion ends [possible] life each time. Banning abortion has the capability of allowing a woman to die, in rare cases. And since this is true, perhaps abortion should be allowed in such cases as it endangers the woman’s life. In which case banning abortion takes no risk in ending life. But to allow abortion in ANY case, for ANY reason, would be to allow for anyone and everyone to abort, regardless of if anyone’s life is in danger.
“I don’t agree” and “not everyone agrees” is not the only thing I have stated with regards to explanation, as my posts clearly indicate. If I said those repeatedly, it was in response to you setting forth your opinion as indisputable scientific data. Therefore I was refuting that concept based on the fact that many in the scientific circle have differing views on this which cannot be ignored. That was the emphasis of most of the discussion.
“The fact that a few people here or there disagree with this or that is irrelevant. Some people believe the earth is flat. That does not mean a flat earth is a legitimate point of view.”
I was referring to scientists and philosophers of science, as my quote stated as such: “scientific circles.” I mentioned them only because their opinions would be relevant to the topic.
I mean no animosity here and I appreciate the discussion. I will try to be more clear in discussion, so that there is no confusion."Therefore you would also have to explain logically why it is not a human person at a particular stage, and is at another."
And that's what I did earlier.
"The reason their argument is ridiculous is because it has nothing to do with the actual conception process..."
But according to them it does. You believe "conception" starts with fertilization. Well, the twinklers move it even further back and say that it all starts when the man sees the woman across the bar. You say once fertilization has started, the process has been "set in motion." But somebody else can say that once eye contact is made, the process is set in motion. Or with the first kiss, or with the first intercourse, or whenever. It's the same idea. And, by their own standard, it makes perfect sense. To interrupt that process is to end a potential person.
Here, let's try this. I would believe that a zygote is a person if someone could demonstrate to me some fundamental, essential quality that (1) distinguishes persons from animals, and (2) is shared between an adult person and a zygote.
DNA won't work because almost all human DNA is shared with lower life forms. Well, that's a pickle because a zygote is just DNA.
I've shown my cards. Now, what would it take for you to believe a zygote was NOT a person?
"There are many theories about what makes one human; none of which are scientifically verifiable."
The definition of "humanity" or personhood, like the definition of "hope," is not a question that science can answer. It is a question for philosophy. But it is still accessible through reason, which means there are right and wrong answers.
"It is also impossible for anyone to prove that their theory about what makes a human being, is actually correct."
No, we can prove it one way or another. But only if we fully flesh out all of the assumptions being made, which requires a ton of honesty, self-awareness and patience that most people don't have. It can be a difficult process, but that does not mean it is impossible.
It is life. A zygote is alive, just as your hand is alive. But it is not a person.
Glad to see I can make a girl laugh even in this context." And that's what I did earlier.”
True. But to me, it didn’t make much logical sense. To me, a human is more than a conglomeration of cells. Once it is fertilized, it is human because it is growing into an adult human being. You mentioned a particular stage in a child’s development at which it achieved humanity. But how does this humanity suddenly come onto the child? Does it develop? Is it a gradual process? I find it difficult to assume that a child suddenly develops traits necessary to be called human. I agree that if a zygote was simply indeed a conglomeration of cells, then your logic would follow wonderfully. But my argument is that it is not.
“But according to them it does. You believe "conception" starts with fertilization. Well, the twinklers move it even further back and say that it all starts when the man sees the woman across the bar. You say once fertilization has started, the process has been "set in motion." But somebody else can say that once eye contact is made, the process is set in motion. Or with the first kiss, or with the first intercourse, or whenever. It's the same idea. And, by their own standard, it makes perfect sense. To interrupt that process is to end a potential person.”
Ahh…I misunderstood what you meant by “twinkle in their eye” etc. Well…I’m not seeing it as analogous because I think you’re not really looking at my viewpoint the same way I am. True, these “twinklers” (giggle) would say that seeing the woman across the bar began the conception process, but that is not what would give the child its humanity. In my definition, the physical act of fertilization is what created the zygote, but it did not give it its humanity. You are saying that fertilization created the child, but the development of consciousness at a later time is what made the child human. (I think that’s what you’re saying. Correct me if I’m wrong. Oh wait. That was stupid. Of course you will
) So, I think the analogy of the “twinklers” is a little irrelevant…I say this because it does not address the issue we are addressing: at what point does the child become human? The analogy of the “twinkler” said nothing about their idea that the child was human, only that the child’s growth process begins earlier.
The point is that you and I both agree fertilization begins the growing process. We disagree at what point that child is human. I argue it is at conception. You argue it is at a critical period during growth in which the child achieves a type of consciousness (as best I can understand you) or in better words, at which point it would be able to live independent of the mother’s body and is therefore in some sense independent.
“Here, let's try this. I would believe that a zygote is a person if someone could demonstrate to me some fundamental, essential quality that (1) distinguishes persons from animals, and (2) is shared between an adult person and a zygote. DNA won't work because almost all human DNA is shared with lower life forms. Well, that's a pickle because a zygote is just DNA. I've shown my cards. Now, what would it take for you to believe a zygote was NOT a person?”
It would take the (1)the zygote not being created by two humans. Because to me, the definition of a person is one which has inherently all the physical and mental qualities of a human being. In this case, it is confined within a specific type of DNA which Is created by the egg and sperm.
“The definition of "humanity" or personhood, like the definition of "hope," is not a question that science can answer. It is a question for philosophy. But it is still accessible through reason, which means there are right and wrong answers.”
Of course it is. And that is why I questioned yours. You seemed to be basing it on merely a scientific explanation. I took this from your statements that the child becomes human after it obtains a type of mental consciousness, etc. I thereby took your definition to be strictly scientific. Glad to have that cleared up.
“No, we can prove it one way or another. But only if we fully flesh out all of the assumptions being made, which requires a ton of honesty, self-awareness and patience that most people don't have. It can be a difficult process, but that does not mean it is impossible.”
I was still using the reference to “proving scientifically” in this sense. In other words, we can’t prove it scientifically. And, given the nature of philosophy, perhaps we can’t “prove” it philosophically. Or…Perhaps we can prove it, but it definitely hasn’t up until this time. And before you could prove it, you would have to delve into the philosophy of science and what makes something evidence, what causes something to be proof, can metaphysics enter the picture, etc. Yes, perhaps it is discoverable and is provable, I just highly doubt that any “proofs” of any kind would be accepted.
It is life. A zygote is alive, just as your hand is alive. But it is not a person.”
This explains a lot of my confusion concerning your statements. I understood your definition of a human being as being one which is scientific only. But now you just said that the definition of humanity is not one that science can answer. Where then do you derive your definition of humanity from?"To me, a human is more than a conglomeration of cells."
And to me too. That's why an embryo, which is just a conglomeration of cells, is not a human person.
"But how does this humanity suddenly come onto the child? Does it develop? Is it a gradual process?"
This whole process only takes about 9 months. The ability to survive and be viable, to feel pain, etc, all of these things arise within a period of weeks. BTW, a "child" to me is a person. This is why I keep referring to persons and non-persons. The child, adult, old man--are all persons. The zygote, embryo--these are human things (like a hand or a human eyeball), but not persons. In my definition (yes, I know you disagree).
"I find it difficult to assume that a child suddenly develops traits necessary to be called human."
Yet as soon as the sperm enters the egg, you think it is a person. That's even more sudden than my definition.
"In my definition, the physical act of fertilization is what created the zygote, but it did not give it its humanity."
So then what did give it its humanity?
I'm saying this hypothetical twinkler idea would argue a person was created at that earlier time, just as you argue the person was created upon fertilization.
"Because to me, the definition of a person is one which has inherently all the physical and mental qualities of a human being. In this case, it is confined within a specific type of DNA which Is created by the egg and sperm."
But DNA (which is all a zygote is, essentially) does not have any mental or physical qualities of a human being. It does not have arms, legs, a mind, emotions, etc. DNA is just a code, it's just a series of letters: A,T,C and G. Only when that code is expressed do we start to see something that begins to have those physical and mental qualities.
"And before you could prove it, you would have to delve into the philosophy of science and what makes something evidence, what causes something to be proof, can metaphysics enter the picture, etc."
That's what I was referring to with all the hidden assumptions that people have. We would have to delve and uncover all of those things to see what are the fundamental sources of a person's beliefs.
"Yes, perhaps it is discoverable and is provable, I just highly doubt that any “proofs” of any kind would be accepted."
Personally, it doesn't matter whether something is "accepted" or not. I don't believe truth is a popularity contest.
"Where then do you derive your definition of humanity from?"
I am using scientific findings and facts to help define it, but it is not a scientific question per se. My definition of personhood or humanity is based on observations of myself and other preexisting persons, and identifying what their qualities are. What I observe is qualities like consciousness, self-awareness, ability for independent action and reaction, physical independence from other bodies, capacity for learning and complex thought. All of these things are shared among all people--from babies to old men (in the case of babies or mentally handicapped it is not fully developed, but still there).
A zygote, or a string of DNA code, has none of these qualities. Monkeys and dogs have some of them. I can interact with a dog, play with a dog, etc. I can't interact with DNA. I can't shake hands with DNA. I can't have a conversation like I am with you right now, with DNA. DNA can't smile at me, it can't think, it can't hope. Because DNA is organic material, but it is not an organism.
Perhaps we could say human DNA is more valuable than animal DNA, but that's about all we can say about it.All this boils down to:
How do we define humanity?
Anything else we discuss about abortion is literally pointless until we debate about this definition of humanity. That's why I was reluctant to discuss anything more than "some disagree with this definition" earlier... because that's what all this is based on and arguing abortion is pointless without arguing this first.
Your beliefs about what constitutes humanity is based on science and what you observe, am I correct?
I believe it is made of something quite else, a spirit or soul of some kind.
Unless we agree on this, I think all other argument is pointless? What do you think?Yes, the conception of personhood is the core of the abortion issue. I am a naturalist, as I've indicated. That means I don't believe anything exists except this natural world. So concepts like "soul" or "spirit" do not enter into the picture because they are supernatural concepts.
Descriptions of the "soul" or "spirit" in ancient literature and cultural traditions, tend to sound like what we today would call consciousness, sentience, intelligence, awareness, personality or psyche.
In any case, naturalism is the logically superior mentality to supernaturalism, and it is the default state of the human mind. That's another whole rabbit hole of course."Yes, the conception of personhood is the core of the abortion issue. I am a naturalist, as I've indicated. That means I don't believe anything exists except this natural world. So concepts like "soul" or "spirit" do not enter into the picture because they are supernatural concepts.
"Descriptions of the "soul" or "spirit" in ancient literature and cultural traditions, tend to sound like what we today would call consciousness, sentience, intelligence, awareness, personality or psyche."
Yes. And because you hold that naturalism correct, you consider those to be natural things or products of natural things, am I corect? To me, based on the worldview I have, these things are not required to have natural substance to them, although they may.
"In any case, naturalism is the logically superior mentality to supernaturalism, and it is the default state of the human mind. That's another whole rabbit hole of course."
Default, perhaps, though debatable...
How do you feel it is superior to other worldviews?One can interpret almost anything as supernatural because there is no reliable way of testing or verifying supernaturalist claims. Naturalism works for that reason--it allows for testable, repeatable, verifiable claims. Only if we can definitively say a claim is correct or incorrect do we have a useful worldview.
For instance, some believe God wants them to help those in need, others believe God wants them to kill unbelievers. There is no way of knowing which is correct. You must begin with certain blind faith assumptions to conclude God wants one or the other.
By contrast, naturalism requires few or no blind faith assumptions. As a result, naturalism has answered more questions in a few centuries than supernaturalism could answer in millennia. Now, I'm the first to say there may be a God, or a supernatural world. There also may be a Big Foot. Anything is possible. But there is no reason--either empirical or logical--to believe it."One can interpret almost anything as supernatural because there is no reliable way of testing or verifying supernaturalist claims. Naturalism works for that reason--it allows for testable, repeatable, verifiable claims. Only if we can definitively say a claim is correct or incorrect do we have a useful worldview."
This is based upon your assumption that testing and repetition create verifiable claims. This is an assumption which is, granted, most widely held, but cannot be proven to be in any way superior; only different and useful within a certain set of parameters.
"For instance, some believe God wants them to help those in need, others believe God wants them to kill unbelievers. There is no way of knowing which is correct. You must begin with certain blind faith assumptions to conclude God wants one or the other."
"By contrast, naturalism requires few or no blind faith assumptions..."
That depends on how one defines "faith"...from my study of the philosophers, physicists I have referred to, this is somewhat interpretive. Once you get to the very base study of science (physics), the separation of two concepts of "philosophy" and "science" become interestingly fuzzy; and definitions and concepts which seemed so solid and factual suddenly become a little less sturdy.
"... As a result, naturalism has answered more questions in a few centuries than supernaturalism could answer in millennia."
Believing that naturalism has answered more questions is based absolutely in the fact that you set criteria on what you would deem as an acceptable answer...
" Now, I'm the first to say there may be a God, or a supernatural world. There also may be a Big Foot. Anything is possible. But there is no reason--either empirical or logical--to believe it."
Is empiricim the correct viewpoint? Is it better than any other? As to whether or not it is logical, that depends on how you define logic?
My point in all this is to say: your view may be absolutely correct; but your reasons stated above don't really demonstrate its superiority; it just shows its parameters and its description. The judgement as to whether or not it is superior is entirely determined by what one views as acceptable for evidence and proof, what one thinks of faith, etc. All these concepts are philosophical concepts. To argue those we'd have to argue further into things like "what makes evidence evidence? Is there really such a thing as cause/effect? If so, what is it really?" etc. etc. Interesting questions to tackle.
As I said, you may be absolutely correct; but to claim something is superior is to make alot of assumptions concerning that claim which can be debated and argued much deeper into philosophy..."This is based upon your assumption that testing and repetition create verifiable claims. This is an assumption... cannot be proven to be... superior; only different and useful within a certain set of parameters."
Actually it can. The parameters are the human mind.
Ultimately, this all comes down to the human mind itself. Since it is the human mind that is doing the thinking, only things that the human mind can know are knowable. Is it possible that there are parameters beyond the human mind? Yes. That is why I said it is possible that supernaturalism is correct. But because we are human minds, we cannot know it if it is true, and thus it may as well not be true to us.
"That depends on how one defines "faith"... a little less sturdy."
By blind faith assumptions I mean assumptions taken on faith, with no rational basis or evidence for them. "Axioms" in the terms of strict logic.
I am no physicist. All I can say is that, in the mold of Descartes, if I assume nothing else, I have to assume that I exist. If I did not exist, then I could not be thinking. So I exist. And if I exist, then reality must exist, otherwise I could not exist. So natural reality exists. That much is clear. No blind faith assumptions so far. The first blind faith assumption I must make is that my senses are somewhat reliable (note that this is totally separate from the issue of thinking, because you don't need senses to think).
Now that may be a pretty big assumption. But it is also very simple and straightforward. If my senses are at least somewhat reliable (not perfect), then I can safely believe many things I observe. From that point on, I don't need to assume anything on blind faith.
"Believing that naturalism has answered more questions is based absolutely in the fact that you set criteria on what you would deem as an acceptable answer..."
See my first point above. It ultimately goes back to the mind, and what is knowable for the mind.
"Is empiricim the correct viewpoint? Is it better than any other? As to whether or not it is logical, that depends on how you define logic?"
I define logic fairly broadly. But that aside, empiricism and logic are the principal means of understanding the world, for a mind (which is, again, what we are).
"to claim something is superior is to make alot of assumptions concerning that claim..."
As you can see, I am actually making very few assumptions. Most of it is either self evident or stems from self evident things.
Now you can keep asking me questions and I will keep answering them. I know you want to problematize everything, which is fine, but I'm fairly confident I will just keep demonstrating that with some reasonable assumptions naturalism is the superior mindset.
To counter, the supernaturalist must, as you are doing, ultimately get into some very hairy territory by asking questions like "but how do you know you are thinking?" or "what is the definition of reality?" and similar things. Unfortunately for them, this just leads to a collapse of their own worldview, because their own worldview depends on solid answers to these questions just as much as the naturalist does. Technically, none of us knows anything for sure. So the supernaturalist, like a suicide bomber, must kill his own worldview to kill his opponent's.
Anyway, you are very welcome to continue this discussion in my hubs. Or if you want to start a new forum. You can have the last word for now.I never meant to problematize anything. It saddens me you felt that way. All philosophical ideas are problematic. It's not my doing. It's just how things are.
I was enjoying the exchange of ideas. If I came across as combative or difficult, it was not my intention. What you said didn't make sense to me, so I challenged it and encouraged the asking of deeper questions such as "what is reality, etc." not to be problematic, but because I enjoy tackling those questions with the intent of seeing new ideas and discovering my own and seeing if they are faulty...those questions are in fact the basis of the discussion we were having, and which I held no sturdy opinion about...hence the asking of it. I was not saying yours was incorrect. I was asking you to understand how it could be looked at in another way. You still think as you think, and that's totally ok However, if you wish not to continue the discussion, then I respect that.
As for having the last word, geez i don't care about that. I'm looking for truth, not to be right or satisfy an ego. Part of the reason I engage in discussion is in search of truth. If in challenging someone else's ideas, I realize that they indeed are correct, I'm cool with that. Truth is truth. Ego doesn't really have a place.Hahaha. Don't be a sad firefly! Actually I have quite enjoyed our little intellectual soire. It's refreshing to have a real conversation about real ideas with someone for a change. Most people don't care or are too impatient. I am happy to answer as many questions or challenges as you want to pose. It just seemed that the questions were flowering without any real direction, which would drag us into a much longer discussion. I am happy, however, to continue elsewhere and answer as many questions as you or anyone else can produce. I too enjoy exploring ideas and digging deeper.
It's just a very awkward forum here, as we keep pushing the comments and replies further to the right off the page, and difficult to track where the discussion has gone in chronological view. These forums seem to be designed more for short, punchy back-and-forth.
"All philosophical ideas are problematic. It's not my doing. It's just how things are."
Now I am going to take a page from your book: that is your opinion. It is not necessarily "how things are."
Now, put in your last 2 cents, and come to my hubs. Or else I will be forced to come to you!
I'm pro-choice and I think that if the girl or woman for whatever reason doesn't want to have a baby she should be able to end the pregnancy without a hassle. I don't think adoption is such an easy solution either but it's up to the individual to decide what is best for them. I don't think that an unborn child should take presidence over the woman's life. What I mean is I don't think an unwanted pregnancy needs to result in the birth of a child if the woman doesn't want to be pregnant. I don't like seeing abortion used as a type of birth control and hope that there are more efforts to prevent unwanted pregnancies and educate both girls and boys about safe sex.
I am pro choice. I know that women will and should be able to make the decision, because everyone has rights, and so I agree with you, but I am not pro-abortion and I also agree that girls and boys should be educated about "safer" sex. Safe sex is a fantasy. Unless companies produce condoms that are 100% effective and still bring pleasure, and birth control that's also 100%, will "safe" sex be reachable.
I detest the fact that this topic is considered a political and/or social issue. The only reason it's a topic in political and social circles is to create separation among people.
I only posted it in this topic because it is considered a political issue, but I do agree it probably shouldn't be. But, I still would like to know people's stances, mainly those who are for it, but also in general.
Very good point, Ray. I am too upset that this is considered such an important issue in today's politics. A Thousand Words, I agree with what you said in the initial post. It bothers me too.
its considered a political or social issue because we as a nation have taken it from the home and church and thrust it into the political arena by litigating it,... rather than teaching/learning/living it.
i'm pro-life,.... and i'm soo pro-life i tend to piss off most pro-lifers,.... i make no exceptions for rape or incest,.... only in defence of the life of the mother would i be moraly secure in taking of the life of the unborn,.... and in further agravating the right wing, screaming, bloody picture waving pro-lifers,.... i'm very VERY anti-death penalty.
i find it staggering that those who would march in the streets for the life of a small pin head size collection of cells,.... have no problem with the notion of shoving a needle into the arm of someones brother, father, son,... and filling thier body full of chemicals that litteraly melt the person from the inside out,... they even cheere the notion at political rallies,....
they justify the notion of capital punishment by quoting the old testament, but they seek forgiveness for thier transgressions by quoting the new testament.
all that said,...... i have no desire to se abortion made illeagal in this country,.....
i simply want to see less abortions performed.
abortion is a symptom of a much larger problem,.... and outlawing abortion will do no more to fix the original problem than prohibition did.
its a spiritual problem that we face,....
you cannot legislate morality,.... you cannot enforce morality at bayonet point,...
you must teach it,.... and your own life is the best chalk board to teach from.it occoured to me in re-reading this that i did not answer the "why" portion of the question,...
i'm pro-life because when a woman discovers she is pregnant with a child that she has been hoping and praying for,.... its a child..... yet,.... if a woman finds herself pregnant when she wasnt planning on it, maybe not prepared for it,..... its refered to as an embreo,... or a small collection of cells,... a choice,....
a 17 year old girl was pregant in february of 1973,.... for those who dont know, thats just a few days after the supreme court handed down the roe V wade descision,... and despite being a text book case for abortion,... she had the baby anyway.
this girl came from a broken home, train wreck of a family life, alcohol, drugs,..... she had no idea who the father was because of her poor descisions trying to find affection,.... her community was small and small minded.
she was due an art scholarship, and already had a promised job with halmark greeting cards,...
but she stayed home and had the baby,.... because it was a life,.... and was never a choice in her mind.
and she is my mom.hear, hear, Stclair.
I am also pro-life, we do agree on that. And I too am adament about, being over the top in the idea of unless mothers life is in danger no abortion.
we do disagree on death penalty but hey we can't agree on everything can we.
Glad your mom believed there was no choice. She was brave and sure life wasn't easy for her at the time. But it looks like she and you made it just fine.
I am neither pro-lifer or pro-killer.
I am about the person, or couple, having the right to choose between the two and make their own decision, using educated facts and not the hocus pocus of religion, that is best suited for them. Shoving your choices upon them as the only choice is wrong.
I hope anyone I know and care about who makes this decision can come to me for support, no matter what they decide, whether or not I agree with it. My place is as a friend, not judge and jury.
For every well my mom had me story and look at us arent we perfect and wonderful ... there are just as many stories ending badly to horrific from people having kids when they really shouldn't have.
I guess I am pro choice. And pro-education.I am also pro-choice and pro-education. But you never know if a person is going to be the next Martin Luther King, Jr., John Lennon, the next Hitler
, or simply the next average Joe. This potential child doesn't even get to make any choices at all, though.hey now little two two,.... just to be clear,.... i want you to know i meant by no means to leave a "we're so perfect and wonderfull" impression,.... i grew up surounded by drunks addicts ballanced by equal amounts of bible thumping screaming evangelical baptist hypocrits,... it was by no streach of the imagination,... a "less than perfect" upbringing,...
but here i am,... and i'm comfortable with who i am,... and at peace with the forces that shaped me,.... i try very hard to use my life experiences to serve others.
i'm pro-life in that i always advocate for life,.... but in the end,... i firmly believe as you do,.... thats it is a gut wrenching descision to be made by the people involved, based on thier beliefes, siuation, etc,.... NOT a descision to be made by some feckless beaurocrat or politician or judge.
i always try to remind people if they should come to me, that there are more options out there than just abortion.
- PrettyPantherposted 12 years ago
0"As soon as that egg is fertilized, there is another being that is about to start growing inside of you."
"It is something that in 9 months will become another little person."
"To be able to conveniently destroy it just because it's inconvenient to you upsets me."
Do you use birth control pills? If not, are you okay with those who do?Every month, for most women, an egg is released along with, well, you know what a period is. Am I going to throw a fit for these little eggs? No. They are not going to potentially be anything UNTIL fertilized. Birth control does as follows:
"Birth control pills prevent pregnancy through several mechanisms, mainly by stopping ovulation. If no egg is released, there is nothing to be fertilized by sperm, and the woman cannot get pregnant."
A woman, and I've known it to happen to a number of my friends/acquaintances, can still get pregnant while on birth control. But the pills don't kill the fertilized egg, it simply attempts to keep them all from being fertilized.
I see no problem with this. My only problem is after the fertilization takes place.Oh, and I don't have full intercourse because I am deathly afraid of getting pregnant. I'm 21 years old, and I don't intend on being married for another 5 years. I believe having a child is one of the most important decisions a person can make, because you are bringing another person into this world, and shouldn't just do it on a whim. I know a woman whose husband wore a condom AND she was on birth control and she STILL got pregnant.
Now, I will probably find it harder to abstain from the full thing for much, much longer, but I do know that 1) I am ok with using birth control and condoms, 2) I know that contraceptives and all of it are not 100%, and 3) If I do get pregnant and know I am not ready, Abortion won't be an option for me. I would and do consider Adoption seriously.
If anything, I will carry the child to term, and do thorough research into a family to take care of it. There are plenty of women who wish that they could have children, and any one who seems to be truly fit to be a mother, in my opinion of a potentially good mother, I would happily oblige her. Children who grow up in happy, healthy homes who are told the truth about being adopted an early age have many less problems with the idea that are adopted.
It's still convenient in a way, but at least the child is given a chance.but you are looking at from your own perspective, Try and imagine being dragged into an alley, held at knife or gun point, forced to perform sex acts on one or possibly several men,locked in a room for weeks on end, then beaten, raped and impregnated by a man who will haunt your nightmares for years to come. I don't imagine the joys of motherhood will apply, when you know the child growing inside of you is the product of this attack. I understand and agree with the banning of abortion as a contraceptive, but what about an violent vicious rape? or life threatening disease or deformity? what about child abuse?, i think it must be decided on an indiviual basis, as we are all different.
I agree that rape/molestation is awful, and that if it ends up in a pregnancy, that is very emotional to the woman. My question is, though, what does the child have to do with the act itself of rape? Please, I'm not trying to be inconsiderate by any means, and I know it is a scary thing for any woman to experience. But, ultimately, she is making an emotional decision to abort a child that was, of no fault of its own, conceived.
I've been molested in a sense, but never experienced full-fledged raped, so understand that I do not claim to know exactly what it feels like for these women, especially in the scenario you described. I am, like I've stated in my previous posts, pro-choice, simply because no one should have any right forfeited them. However, I think, apart from political agendas, this should be considered seriously, every single option weighed, before it is performed. I mean really, seriously consider every choice, instead of just choosing abortion because it looks best at the time. Many women suffer greatly after aborting a potential child, as well.
There is plenty of counseling offered to rape victims, including rape victims who become pregnant. And you'd be surprised at how often women decide to keep the baby and the child itself ends up being therapeutic for them. Many women feel awful after making the decision to abort their child no matter the reason for conception. Then they might indeed have to face and be counseled for two issues instead of one.
Adoption is almost always an option.
Abortion is wrong because it takes a life we all started out as fetus what if all our mothers had aborted us the world would be a smaller place.To me it's simple life begans at conception.
I'm of a third opinion. I won't get into it because people will call me loony.
But I've always been interested in the idea of "life begins at conception". This notion, coupled with the undeniable theory of evolution, would suggest that we're all one living organism who changes gradually with time depending on success in an environment.
Intriguing stuff, that.Personally i don't agree with abortion as a contraceptive, but when a woman has been raped, i think if she is involved with someone they then should decide between them both, if she is single then it has to be her choice. She is the person who is violated, no on else. If you look at my profile i have 5 kids, aged 20 down to 7. I am a parent and i love my children more than words can say, but i don't know if i could bond with a child that is the product of rape, regardless of how i feel about my wife and children. A child should be a creation of love, not violence and rape.
I'm pro-choice, but come on... the whole zygote/embreyo/fetus thing is a cop out to make people feel more comfortable with terminating a pregnancy. If we said "Hey, you want to kill your baby?" Abortion would be a lot more difficult of a choice... (As it should be). I just found out yesterday that we are expecting our fifth. I can assure you that the little five week old being in my womb is most certainly a baby.
With that said, abortion is a valid medical procedure with a whole list of valid applications. Those who say "There's always adoption" aren't taking into account those women who will beaten or turned homeless because of their pregnancy. (Domestic violence rates are actually higher for pregnant women) It also doesn't take into account those babies who are going to be born with severe birth defects that are essentially "unadoptable" and will spend their likely short lives in hospital wards or group homes with the state as their guardian.
Because every situation is different, making a uniform law banning abortion is horribly unjust.Congratulations!
And, as usual, "what she said"...
To add a bit of my own opinion here: however you classify the fetus, it can not live on its own outside the mother until the third trimester. Since it is wholly dependent on the mother before then, it is the mother's decision what to do with it.The way I see the different ways of viewing the unborn child is that it depends on the woman's perspective. If you are excited and anticipating being a mother then you will see it as a baby as soon as you know it's there. It's still an embryo/zygote/fetus though. People will see it differently though and do what works for them. I agree with what you said about adoption. Congrats on your little one.
I am pro life, but I think abortion should be legal up to the first trimester. Having said that, Roe v Wade should be overturned.
i see a lot f threads on this subject,... we all do here and elsewhere,...
i just want to say that i'm VERY impressed with the tone here,... this has been far better than just civil,...
the conversations, posts and replys i'm reading in this thread are genuine and NOT hatefull or bullish,..
kudos to all here,..... so refreshing to see real intelctualy honest convrsation on a subject that often becomes soooo mush less than that.one hour later i return to read,....
maybe not so much now,... but still ok enough,...
carfull kidos
There are only a few reasons for abortion and they are as follows.
1- rape, though it is the woman's choice to carry to term or not.
2-Incestual rape, self-explanatory
3- The pregnancy is life threatening to the mother, although it is still the mothers choice. THE END!!!Spoken by someone who obviously has never had to watch their child die.
No, spoken by one who was allowed to live. I'm adopted, so I was very lucky to get parents who cared. Still if you bothered to fully read my response,I, clearly stated it still is the womans' choice. Not the govt. or doctors but the womans. PERIOD
Yeah, so you get to say the only circumstance where abortion is acceptable and those are rape and maternal health. So what about those women who are carrying severly handicapped children... or those women who are beaten or killed (yes killed) when their partner finds out they are pregnant? How about those teenage moms who are kicked out of their house and find themselves homeless because their parents went apes**t? How about those single moms with two or three kids that are going to be evicted or go hungry during those couple months (at least) that they can't work?
And if you say birth control I will be more than happy to show you a picture of how effective even "good" birth control is. She is going to be three this month. She's very cute.Melissa,
What part of "It's the Womans choice" do you not understand? I might not agree with that choice but it is still hers.steven hawking i SEVERELY handicapped,..... but he is the worlds preimenant physicist,.... hell i cant even spell how awsomely important to human undersatndinghe is,...
on the other hand i was a perfectly healthy but unplanned baby,.... i play guitar and ballance my check book,.... but i'm no steven hawking.
should his mother have aborted him?
not to mentin you seem to be saying ,...... that because evil wouldbe committed by others, we should commit a different evil to avoid another evil,.... because a boy friend might beat or kill his girlfriend, we should kill the unborn o he doesnt kill the mother,..... thats like saying i killed my children because i didnt want the dog to bite them.
i say this a suporter of life who believes abortion should NOT be outlawed,...
fight evil,....... dont return it
Do you think the law should be changed to only allow these reasons? Would a girl have to suffer through trying to prove she was raped? Couldn't girls just say they were raped so they can get the procedure they need?
Yes, that's what concerns me about those types of laws. It's obvious to anyone with half a brain that if rape, incest, or threat to the mother's life was the only way to get an abortion, then a lot of girls would show up at abortion clinics claiming rape, so it seems likely that lawmakers would try to put in some sort of requirement for proof.
Unfortunately, the majority of rapes currently go unreported (way too many date rape victims don't even seem to realize they've been raped, like Bristol Palin saying that it wasn't rape when Levi got her drunk and had sex with her when she was passed out - yes, honey, it was), so if you get raped, don't report it due to fear, shame, lack of opportunity, or whatever, and then discover you're pregnant three weeks later, what do you do in a society that requires proof of rape before allowing you to get an abortion? I think it would be cruel to force a woman to carry her rapist's child if she doesn't want to just because she can't prove she was raped, and I think restrictive abortion laws of that type would put an unfair burden on women who are already suffering.
I'm personally opposed to abortions of convenience (though I'm okay with them if you've made a good faith effort to use appropriate birth control and the birth control failed), but they're much better prevented by improving sex education and birth control access/reliability than by making them illegal. Western Europe, where both high quality birth control and legal abortions are almost universally available, has the lowest abortion rate in the world.
- PrettyPantherposted 12 years ago0
"But the pills don't kill the fertilized egg, it simply attempts to keep them all from being fertilized."
Your statement is not always true. Birth controls pills cause the lining of the uterus becomes thinner, making it more difficult for a fertilized egg to attach to the uterus should ovulation occur and fertilization take place. Therefore, if you believe that life begins at fertilization, then those who use birth control pills are, in your view, committing murder.I don't believe that wilfully taking a life is ever good. We have cheapened something which should be priceless...but having said that, there are many reasons why having a child isn't a good idea either. Giving someone supreme right over their bodies is also problematic. Where do you draw the line, and should you?
A propos to the issue of is a fertilized egg a person? Is an acorn an oak tree? Should an acorn have the same respect and or rights as an oak tree? Why do we have have different words for them? Need we mourn the loss of an oak tree every time a squirrel eats an acorn? Do we typically conduct a full blown funeral for a miscarriage? If not, why not? Isn't it because we make some common sense distinctions between the death of a person and the death of a fetus? I suppose that if it was the last acorn on the planet, then we might mourn its loss as if it were also the last oak tree. But then there would still be the memories of actual oak trees and the idea of an oak tree.
If all life is of equal importance to the whole, then too much of one life or 7 billion people is the death of how much other life. Is there only one healthy reef left in the world? So important am I, why should I complain?
Birth control for all animals except humans
is by catastrophe. When they overpopulate and devastate their resource base they die because they are incapable of birth control. Humans are
apparently incapable of birth control, in which
the result will be and already is the same when the fetus is more important than the well-being and survival of the species.It would appear that the United States recognizes a pregnant woman as caring for another life since one can be prosecuted for harming the mother and the child. If the law recognizes this as unlawful how then are abortions different?
Interesting point. The way it is different to me is that in an abortion the woman is making a choice to end the pregnancy. In the other scenario it is regarding a crime against the woman and unborn child.
But why the different word choice? The fact of the matter is that, instead of some third party, it is the mother taking the life. If the third party is the one committing the crime, and it is considered wrong, then why, when the mother is doing the same thing, is there any doubt? The third party and mother both made "decisions." There's only one in the mix left without one(a choice).
I see it like this. Sometimes people murder people. Sometimes people kill others in self defense. Both times someone was killed but for different reasons. To me one is with malice and the other is for survival.
There many situations where people believe their survival to be threatened, though. Is a man justified in killing another man who stole all of his money that he spent a lifetime earning? He certainly might feel his survival threatened. But really, he's just scared.
I will never judge a fellow woman for having an abortion nor have laws made to control her. But, I just think we should call it what it is, so that women see it as a very last resort. BY making it seem like it isn't that big of a deal, and calling the zygote and embryos and such collections of cells, and this and that, women will be more accustomed to having them.
Using abortion as a form of birth control is WRONG. that being said, i do believe there is a place for abortion as a choice when no other option will work. Having a baby as the result of a rape would be difficult to imagine...not impossible ..but difficult. reliving the rape would be the elephant in the room even though the precious new life was not the cause, she or he was the result.
an incestuous relationship that resulted in pregnancy also would be another time for consideration of termination.
consdier this: a woman goes ahead and has the unwanted child for either of the reasons above and discovers she hates the child. then a whole new set of circumstances comes in to play. she neglects and abuses it? she may not want to admit she cannot handle the new life she brought into the world so she may not want to give it up to someone else to love. what should she have done?
fortunately i have not been faced with this decision. it is easy, to an extent, for me to share what i think on this topic having never faced it.
i do believe this should be an option left on the table.Good points. What I think is wrong is politicians using the abortion topic to sway voters. Actually abortion is between the pregnant woman, her doctor and family only. Pro - lifers need to get it in their heads that it's none of their business.
Abortion isn't a right OR wrong matter. As in the case in many contentious issues, the answer depends on a number of factors including the reason(s) for choosing or not choosing an abortion and the stage of the pregnancy. The answer whether abortion is right or wrong is "it depends" on the circumstances.
Its like religion, there's never gonna be a right or wrong answer to this topic. But, what if a woman gets pregnant due to a forcible rape? Is there not even one circumstance in which it is okay by your standards?
In my opinion, abortion should be discouraged, especially late term abortions and those undertaken for the convenience of the parent(s). I don't believe it's wrong in cases of rape, in cases of pregnant children, in cases of severe fetal congenital issues, and when carrying the fetus to term would jeopardize the health of the mother. Abortions in these cases should be done as early as possible in the pregnancy. The decision should be between the woman and her doctor and possibly the father. I don't support state or federal laws intervening in these matters.
Ralph, This is not an adequate answer to the question. It amounts to relativism which implies there is no truth to ethical questions. "It depends" just doesn't cut it.
Wrong. Ethical decisions should take into account all the circumstances. An abortion of a young child's pregnancy is a different matter from a mature woman aborting her second pregnancy because the fetus is a boy when she wanted a girl. As Thomas Aquinas said, "Seldom affirm. Never deny. Always distinguish."
As I said above before reading your comment, I think abortion should be discouraged but ultimately left up to the woman and her physician. I don't believe that abortion is wrong in all circumstances nor morally justified in all circumstances. Generally speaking the earlier the abortion the more justifiable it is and the later it is the more questionable it may be, depending on the circumstances. In any event the decision should be a personal one between the woman and her physician. I don't support intervention by the law. Anyone who believes abortions are wrong shouldn't have one.
The only extreme circumstances which occur in the United States that come close to justifying the taking of a unborn child's life pale in comparison to the one and a half million abortions which occur annually. In fact only about 500 women have agbortions due to rape annually, the rest are just irresponsible people who have been brainwashed into thinking that it's a quick fix from getting caught up in their own promiscuous actions.
The agenda of pro abortion entities such as ACORN, planned parenthood, and the UCLA is to lie and coherce in order to convince women that an abortion is the only reasonable path to take. Once you step inside an abortion clinic a dehumanization process comprable to a Nazi death camp begins. The child is always refered to as an "It", a "Blood clot", or a "mass of cells" in order to detract from any kind of notion which would remind the mother that a person is inside her.
They will do everything possible to persuade the mother to get an abortion. It is a documented fact that they use such tactics, they tell the mothers who want to know the gender that it is not far enough along even when it is. They keep the monitor turned away so the mother can not see a picture of the living being growing inside of her.
They say that it is relativly painless but when a saline abortion is administered, the mother will feel the child kicking violently as it's lungs are fatally burned.
The whole thing is fueled by money. The more abortions the clinics perform the more funding they get. Our tax dollars go to it when it only costs about $500.00 on average to kill a fetus.
It is obvious that the decisions our youth are making is based on the social acceptability of this practice which is driven by liberal teachers in our schools.
- Deb Welchposted 12 years ago0
There was a question asked 12 days ago by restlesswaters: When does a human being come into existence during pregnancy?
My answer was considered negative and was hidden. Here it is:
I do not know how correct I may be or how technical or scientific my answer is however I truly believe a baby becomes a person with his or her own soul when the baby is cut from the cord and takes it's first breath free from the mother's womb. Until that time - the mother's soul is responsible for that baby's life or death. That first breath is so important -
we wait for it and listen for the baby's cry whether it is a healthy baby or a weak life.
I did not explain that the soul of the Mother can take a beating for doing the terrible act of abortion.
As far as rape, incest, too young 12 to 16 years old, or other rotten situations in life. Another thought came to my mind - with regard to the Mother who has gone through 9 months of pregnancy and then gives her baby away - how heart wrenching - that pain must never go away.
Are those reasons good ones or excuses as with abortion? Just because a human being starts out as a microscopic cell does not mean it is any less a life. We all started out that way. Unfortunately a woman cannot be made a prisoner of her own body, so I feel education is the only real solution.
- Emile Rposted 12 years ago0
I'm pro life in the decisions I make for myself. I'm pro it isn't my business, or anyone else's, for decisions another woman makes. Which is why I find the OP offensive. You claim you aren't religious but the entire thing smacks of a religious stance.
I've said it a thousand times. A woman faced with an unwanted pregnancy has enough emotional trauma without us adding to the weight of her pain. There is nothing loving, or kind, in attempting to shove our personal opinions into the arena of a stranger's life. That moment is not a fair moment to debate the issue.
If we wanted to cut down on abortions we would do better by changing education, changing policy on how we expect unwed mothers to be supported and changing our own hearts. Not simply telling another person they have no say in the decisions that change their lives forever.I don't disagree with you. That is how all matters should be approached. But there are laws, and those laws, though they aren't perfect, help to protect people from the bad and often not well thought out decisions that other people make. Understand that I am prochoice, and acknowledge the rights of my fellow women. And there are indeed families who take the time to make well thought-out decisions, weighing all the options first. But I believe the laws to be appropriate for those who wish to use it as birth control.
I am not religious, but, I suppose that there are still some views I haven't let go of. If I agree with something, until I've found enough reason to not feel that way anymore, I will still feel that way.
I never said anything about force or shoving anything at anyone. I personally wouldn't do that. I created this forum to hear what people who believed it alright sometimes had to say about it. Maybe my personal stance on it is wrong, but I also think the way people approach it wrong, and where I stand now, it's the babies being threatened because people get to decide the circumstances for which it is or isn't ok to kill their unborn child and it's often very selfish/immature purposes. Not always, but often.
I think if people referred to that way, instead of just a conglomerate of cells, yadda yadda, it would happen a lot less, So education is very important.
But, at the end of the day. People will do what they want. And they have the right to do so, whether I agree or not. This I realize. The world doesn't revolve around what I think is right or wrong. I just want to see a little perspective and introduce a little perspective.I think it is safe to say that the women making this heart wrenching decision do not see the fetus as a conglomeration of cells.
And to say that any woman considers it a standard form of birth control indicates that you may not understand the severity of the procedure. It is not akin to using an enema. I know a woman who had one and it didn't sound pleasant.
The bottom line is that any woman who considers it has been caught unaware and is either not financially or emotionally prepared to carry the baby to term and should not be forced to.
Anti abortion laws would be shoving our opinions down her throat. There is no other way to view it. If you are a woman, I respect your opinion on the matter. If you are a man, I say grow a womb before opening your mouth on the subject. I know that sounds harsh, but attempting to dictate how another person is to live their life is much harsher.Aren't pro-abortion laws shoving opinion down our throat as well?
It's not really pro-abortion but pro-choice. Women should have the opportunity to get an abortion if they need to. People don't have to like it and if they become pregnant and don't want to be pregnant they can decide for themselves to have a baby. I agree with Emile R that a lot of girls do see it as a baby and not just a bunch of cells. No matter how the unborn is viewed they should still have the choice and option to end the pregnancy.
What other choice is the pro-choice crowd offering?
Well, I think it comes down to Pro-Choice offering abortion, adoption, or raising the baby and Pro-life offering adoption or raise the baby.
Which sounds peachy if you completely disregard any reasons why a 9 month pregnancy would be damaging to the mother OR the fact that some babies are unadoptable.
And the whole a large percentage of women would choose to "keep the baby" rather than adopt out at the time of birth because of all those wonderful hormones. Can we say Casey Anthony?
Or those mothers that would kill themselves AND their babies with coat hangers if legal abortions were outlawed.I have never heard of the pro-choice crowd offering any other choice other than abortion, therefore pro-abortion.
Really? Hmmm... Every pro-choice organization I've ever seen has adoption information and counciling for the mother as well. Since we're making broad sweeping generalizations here, I would say that if the pro-life crowd would actually learn what woman's centers do instead of just bombing them then they would know that.
I am not making broad sweeping statements, I said I haven't seen any other choice offered. I guess now you can tell me what I have heard and what I haven't?
Please tell me so I'll know.Absolutely I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that you are apparently unknowledgeable about how planned pregnancy and woman's health organizations operate and maybe, just maybe, you should find information like that out before speaking against the "pro-choice" movement.
Pro-choice means exactly that: For Choice. It doesn't mean that we are standing outside of OBs offices trying to talk women into having abortions.I know, I know. You know all, please keep posting so I can learn as much as you.
Well they can obviously choose to be pregnant for nine months and care for and raise the child or they can give it up for adoption.
That is the choice of the woman, I am asking about the pro-choice group as a whole.
I am indeed a woman, Emile.
"I think it is safe to say that the women making this heart wrenching decision do not see the fetus as a conglomeration of cells."
I think my point is that it seems that for some, it's becoming less of a heart wrenching decision than it should be, which is where my issue really stands. Secularist views, while I do agree with some of them in other matters, concern me about what it is that makes a person a person, etc.
Just read secularist10's posts. If there are women out there who sound like him, and I'm certain there are, then it won't be all that hard of a decision for them. Girl's who take the morning after pill or who get abortions almost right after finding out about the baby are indeed using it as birth control, and if you don't see the baby as a baby, then it is easier for you to do so. Now, maybe, after a girl gets an abortion, if she gets pregnant again she may decide to have the baby. I had a friend who had an abortion. It was only after she "became a Christian" that she decided the next time she got pregnant to have the baby, and he is a beautiful boy, now about 4 years old. I don't think you need religion to tell you not to have one, but I'm not sure if she would've had another, had she not had something introduced into her life to tell her it was "wrong." Maybe she still would not have had another even without the introduction of this type of morality in her life. I'm not sure.
I am saying that more women should continue to see it as a heart wrenching decision, I suppose.
"The bottom line is that any woman who considers it has been caught unaware and is either not financially or emotionally prepared to carry the baby to term and should not be forced to. "
This is not the unborn's fault, however. If this young woman is sexually active, she should know that there is no such thing as safe sex, should be physically, financially, or emotionally ready to have sex. Since pregnancy is a very likely consequence of sex, should you not take on such a responsibility? At least carrying the pregnancy to term? Adoption is an option.
I think that there should be a type of adoption system set up for women who are as you say, where all of their hospital needs during pregnancy are met, involving the pregnancy, and they have good counseling, They can then safely and securely carry the child to pregnancy, staying in shape, and using cocoa and shea butter if they are afraid of the stretch marks, and let the child go into the adoption program, where parents are thoroughly checked out and picked to take care of said children. Women who are unable to give birth would LOVE to adopt a new born.
"Anti abortion laws would be shoving our opinions down her throat. There is no other way to view it. If you are a woman, I respect your opinion on the matter."
Thank you, and I respect yours, as well. I wouldn't necessarily vote for abortion laws, but I also don't deny their usefulness for the above reasons concerning women who might look at it as less of a "Oh my, I'm with child," and more "Oh sh*t, I shouldn't have f**ked that guy last night" who later find out they are pregnant, and because they aren't "ready" and it's inconvenient, they get an abortion.OMG. If you are against even the morning after pill your religious convictions may never allow you to see that your post is highly judgmental. You do not know what is in the heart or mind of another person. Much of your post assumes the most cold and calculated behavior and thought processes possible in other women. If you are a virgin, kudos I guess. If not, the position these women find themselves in is no different than the one you might find yourself in one day. Until you have walked in their shoes, nether of us know what they go through.
I'm sorry, point out specifically how I am being judgmental? Seriously, I'm not saying that to be argumentative, but I would like to know what you are talking about, specifically.
I don't know if I am explaining myself well, so I'll state it simply. There ARE women out there who are using abortion as an "oh sh*t" option, are there not? IF these women see zygotes/embryos, and the like, as Secularist10 sees them, a conglomerate of cells and DNA, which I'm sure there ARE women who share these views, as men are not the only true secularists out there, then I have a problem with that. I am not forcing anything on anyone. I just have a problem with that. Just like you seem to have a problem with what I'm saying. And I think the laws can protect unborn children from women who DO think that way. But, eventually they should probably overturned and HOPEFULLY these specific women will come to realize that on their own.
But, where's the judgement?
Are you saying that all women who have abortions are only doing it after weighing every option and consider it to be a gut-wrenching action? Do you deny the recklessness of people in general? I do not. And all women aren't little balls of emotion. Any person, no matter what sex, etc, can be quite cold in nature, regarding these things. I am simply saying that we should take responsibility for our actions, instead of finding the easiest way out, when it's most convenient to us, especially if that involves aborting a potential child.
I am not generalizing. I am NOT, I repeat, I am NOT saying that ALL women are having abortions for these reasons. I am saying that there ARE women who do, and the ones who do, and who are starting to see the unborn that way, should go back to, or hopefully see it as more of a gut wrenching decision so that less will do it unless ABSOLUTELY necessary (her life is threatened somehow).
And, no I'm not a complete virgin, I just haven't had full intercourse yet, because I am dead afraid of pregnancy, and it would be hypocritical of me to have an abortion if I were to become pregnant, as my stance on it is where it is, now. Having a child is a big deal, and not something I will take lightly, or risk for a bit o' fun.
I do not believe myself to know everything, Emile. I am young, no lie. I know why I don't have full intercourse, and I know that if I were to get pregnant, I would carry it to term, and that's probably because even if my whole family shunned me, I know of a person or two that I could turn to. It would be one of the most important decisions that I would ever have to make, but for me, right now, abortion just isn't an option.
Maybe I'm wrong for seeing things that way. I certainly don't believe so. But hey, life teaches us things. And I'm not afraid to learn them, if they need be learned.
I don't find it ok, though, to not take responsibility for your own choices, though. While life tends to be complicated, and I know that well, I think there are still certain decisions that we should or should not make.
But at the end of the day, that is only my opinion, and that's all it will ever be, unless someone else agrees, and than it is a shared one. I wouldn't say I was judgmental. At least not completely. But all are guilty of that at some point in our lives, even if we think we aren't.
I agree with you that we should better educate people about Abortion and the obvious liberal agenda which is behind it. It is reprehensible that people in our own government are trying to shove this practice down our throats. Planned parenthood gets around 33% of it's income from the federal government, and weather or not it goes directly to abortion, in one way or another the money still supports this billion dollar industry.
The polices at abortion clinics are never in favor of the child, the councilors are not expected to present alternative options, such as adoption, or welfare programs. Most professionals in the field feel that it is not advisable for patients to view the products of conception, to be told the sex of the fetus, or to be informed of a multiple pregnancy.
The phone operators at abortion clinics get professional training by marketing directors in how to sell abortions over the phone. The over all objective is to get the pregnant mother into the operating room as soon as possible to avoid a long waiting period where she'd have time to think about it.
The argument is that it is just a mass of tissue but it has been documented that the findings of an abortion clinic waste bin is a small elfin thorax, attentuated, its pencilline ribs all in parallel rows with tiny knobs of spine rounding upwards. A translucent arm and hand, a tiny head and body, some pieces of legs, etc.
So I heartily agree that if people were educated on the matter, and the psychological damage which occurs in the wake of such a decision, rather than being sold the fear of inconvenience, and that a person would be better off knowing that there isn't another person out there whom they created, that the number of abortions in America would decrease dramatically.
Unfortunately the opposite is true. The current sentiment of liberal progressives is that a child who might get neglected is better off dead. A child who might have a bright future with adopted parents is better off dead. A child who might grow up in poverty is better off dead. It's my body and the government shouldn't have a say, even though it's tax payer funded. I should be able to choose convenience over responsibility.
Me too. Since an embryo is not a person, it's not murder to kill it.
A life created by two persons is not a person? If you can kill something then it must have life to begin with.
Lots of things are alive. That doesn't make it a person.
Should the only reason we abstain from killing something be because it is a person?
No, not necessarily, but it does mean it is not nearly the moral crime of murder. For instance, we are constantly killing millions and millions of plants and animals on this planet. I don't think slaughtering a chicken to feed a person carries the same moral weight as murdering a person.
I don't like abortion, but I can understand early abortion in certain circumstances.
I just read about someone wanting to abort because she was having a boy and wanted a girl... that's not a reason. Children aren't fashion accessories.
Anyone who favors abortion, just be glad that you weren't aborted. Your mother's choice to keep you allows you to have your opinion today.
Would you like to have never existed?"I would love for somebody to explain to me why a collection of lifeless chemicals qualifies as a human person. Can a puddle of chemicals compose music? Can it smile at me? Can it reach out and shake my hand? Can it dream? Can it desire?" - secularist10
I would love to see those dismembored babies compose music one day, or smile or reach out and shake my hand, dream and kick in its sleep, desire to be close to its mother. If it were simply a puddle of chemicals tell me, why must they be cut up, skull cap taken off and brains stirred up and pulled out? Why must the "doctors" doing the "procedure" do everything in their ability to make sure the chemical puddle is DEAD.
The amount of restraint I am having to put forth at this moment is unreal and I am pretty sure your ignorence and stupidity has sealed my fate for ever, EVER, looking at another abortion thread for fear of stumbingling upon self rightious comments like, "It's just a puddle of chemicals" You make me sick. If I could stomach searching and posting them, I would find pictures of all those babies mutilated in trash bags for you to look at. I don't know if I will be banned for this post or not, I don't really care at this point. I've said my piece.
Yes, Abortion is wrong.See it this way.
We kill a living thing every single day of our lives, let that stay in your head for a moment. An egg is a cell, we kill cells everyday, we kill plants, we kill animals, we kill each other. Abortion prevents a child from being not properly cared for, saving the child from a future of psychological health problems and more. One less human to suffer. Going back, an egg is just a cell not a human. But it has a soul? Everything has a soul, unless you believe otherwise and what did we learn earlier? We kill a lot of things on a daily basis, consciously and unconsciously. So why is it so wrong to consciously kill a cell in sakes of knowing you won't be able to properly care for the it when it grows into a child, preventing it from problems in the future.You explained it really well....
That's the point. And let's not forgetting the mother's life and many other lives (ehem, families involved?) might have to suffer lots of stress and obstacles or not wanting (where's the love?) or being able to afford (baby is expensive) and taking on the responsibilities (hmm, Octet mom, remember?).
"If you can kill something then it must have life to begin with." Point taken. Kill a fish. Kill is not wrong. It is what one kills that is wrong. Who decides what can and cannot be killed? Personally I decide and not someone else.
So if you decided to shoot our President, then it is ok? Or hunt a deer merely more the purpose of game, not hunting to feed your family or for the necessity of clothing, etc.
If you kill the life created by two people through the act of procreation you have killed another person. Two people don't create puppies they create another person. I didn't decide that, nature did.
& neither of us decided for abortion to exist, but hey look who created it.. humans just like you.
No, not humans just like me, humans who do not feel that life is important.
So going to charge me with murder? You going to lock me up in Gitmo? You say I killed a person, I say I did not. You gonna come into my house and arrest me? You gonna be the boss of me?
Nope, just proving that you killed another person, no matter how much you deny it. Sucks to be wrong, don't it?
Trust him, he knows how much it sucks to be wrong. It happens to him almost hourly.
Melissa you were wrong the moment you made a hub about Hulk Hogans Rock 'N' Wrestling. Nostalgia?
LMAO! Believe it or not, that hub and the others in the series actually pull a fair amount of traffic (you know, relative to the rest of my hubs). I'm a child of the '80's... what can I say?
Either way if I have killed a fetus I take responsibility for it. For me quality of life is more important than death. You can eulogize the dead till the cows come home for all I care.
I guess that means something to you? You can do as you like, kill don't kill its your choice.
Waiting for someone to say if you are that pro life then you should feel bad for eating eggs in the morning. Lol. Damn you chicken fetus killers... damn you ALL! sorry, had to lighten the mood up. Carry on:)
Here's the NYTimes editorial today on the Republicans' position on abortion rights:
Editorial
Republicans Versus Reproductive Rights
Published: January 8, 2012
In Iowa, the Republican presidential contenders tried to outdo one another in attacking reproductive rights as they sought the support of caucusgoers from the religious right. In New Hampshire, where voters are less socially conservative, the candidates have focused more on economic issues.
But the message from Iowa was crystal clear: Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Jon Huntsman Jr., Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry all stand ready to restrict a woman’s right to make her own childbearing decisions and deny essential health care to millions of women.
The Republican field is united in its determination to overturn Roe v. Wade; to appoint Supreme Court justices supportive of that goal; and to end government payments to Planned Parenthood for family planning services, cancer screening and other vital health services provided to low-income women. The candidates also want to reinstate the global gag rule that barred family planning groups abroad receiving federal money from even talking about abortion.
There are a few differences among the candidates. Only Mr. Gingrich has called for punishing judges who make abortion rulings not to his liking. Mr. Romney and Mr. Huntsman refused to sign the Susan B. Anthony pledge to appoint antiabortion cabinet members, among other things. Mr. Huntsman opposed the “personhood” initiative in Mississippi that would have given human fertilized eggs the legal rights and protections that apply to people, and outlawed abortion as well as some of the most widely used forms of contraception and in vitro fertilization. Mississippi voters resoundingly rejected the measure in November as going too far.
Mr. Romney denied supporting the measure once it was defeated. But before the vote, in an interview with Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor and a Fox News personality, he created a different impression. When asked whether as Massachusetts governor he would have supported a constitutional amendment establishing that life begins at conception, he said, “Absolutely.”
This fall, the Republican nominee probably will not be trumpeting this extreme agenda in trying to appeal to moderate women voters, a key constituency in the general election. But voters should not be fooled. The assault on women’s reproductive health is a central part of the Republican agenda. It is not too early for Democrats to point that out.
BOTTOM LINE: If you're worried about reproductive rights, vote Democrat. In my opinon, this is an issue used by the Koch brothers and their ilk, the great malefactors of evil, to delude the evangelicals, against their own economic interests, into helping keep conservatives in control of our government. If the truth be known they could not care less about abortion, gay marriage and other social conservative issues which they use as bait to get votes for their tax and other corporate issues. For me, there are much more important issues than abortion: unemployment, the Great Recession, skyrocketing health care costs, Medicare, getting control of the military-industrial complex, ending the war in Afghanistan, and government intrusion on our constitutional rights.I believe that women have the right to have an abortion when necessary. No woman or girl should endure an unwanted pregnancy nor bear a child that she does not want. Furthermore abortion frees a teenaged girl to pursue her education and life goals, not being saddled with a child before she is ready. I remember as a child that my second youngest maternal aunt became unexpectedly pregnant as a teenager. She was an A+ student. She had to forgo higher education and settle for a dead end factory job.
She became an embittered woman and took out her frustrations on her family. She seldom cared for her daughter, leaving her care to her mother who eventually raised the child. She eventually married and had two other daughters but she seldom remained in contact with her "first" daughter. This is sad. I totally believe in abortion because all pregnancies should be welcomed and wanted for the benefit of mother and child alike.It isn't the daughters fault that she got pregnant. Unless she was raped, she chose to have sex and pregnancy is a very probable consequence of sex, considering that is what sex is for, aside from pleasure... She should've manned up and taken on the responsibility as the adult she decided to be when she became sexually active. That daughter shouldn't have had to go through that, but there is only one person at fault, and abortion can't always be the solution, because it certainly doesn't deal with the real issue... Sex isn't just fun and games. It also comes with responsibility. If you're old and mature enough to take part in it, then you should also be old and mature enough to handle what comes along with it, just like all of the other decisions we have to make in life.
I think sex is healthy. I do not believe in complete abstinence because it's just as bad as completely going wild and having sex with everybody and their brother, emotionally-wise, physically, etc. But, young girls should be taught to contain themselves, and really only enjoy actions that won't bring about pregnancy until they are ready to handle the possible consequences: a child. Because abortion is what it is. It is killing an inconvenient child, and at the end of the day, whether you call it an embryo or a conglomerate of cells or whatever, that's what it is.
I think what bothers me more than abortion itself are the excuses for it. As I am now, and how I see the world, I'm not sure I'd want to bring a child into it. But, if I were to get pregnant, I would either raise the child myself, or let him/her be adopted into a home I did thorough research into, which would probably be likelier, because I have a lot of goals I've set for myself. I don't engage in full intercourse for this reason, but if I did, and I got pregnant, it's my responsibility, isn't it? If I bought a car, and I decided to drive 100 miles an hour around curvy dark roads, and I have a blast, but I hit a person, should I drive off and leave them for dead because it's convenient, or should I stop, call the police, and take the responsibility for my actions, whatever the consequences? Sure, I may have plans and be afraid of the consequences, but do I just listen to my emotions in this situation if they tell me to run?
Many women do go back to school when their children get older, and/or they find ways to again pursue their dreams if they really are determined and apply themselves.
Part of the real issue is a lack of education about the importance of abstaining from full intercourse until ready for all outcomes. Such ignorance is perpetuated in society, through many outlets.
But I am pro-choice. Women have rights. The problem shouldn't be dictated by gov't. But there is a problem, and I know that there are women who weigh all the options and feel abortion is the right choice. It is the reality of life. And there are still a lot of things I don't know/understand about life. But whether or not to have an abortion is an important decision to be made, and not necessarily at the point when most emotional. Emotional decisions aren't typically good for the long run. (As the speedy car driver, if I decided to drive away because of emotions, it'd catch up to me eventually, whether I get caught, or my own conscience in my later years)Ugh, to address some of the errors of my post before someone else does.
Of course, sex isn't just for pleasure and making babies, but also for creating a stronger bond with someone, if you are in a serious relationship.
"but there is only one person at fault," I didn't mean to say this. There's actually always a long list of who is at fault of anything. I should have said that, it is still her, ultimately making the decision, but it's not necessarily her fault. There are many different factors affecting the choices that people make. This I am aware of. But, we have to try to be as much of our own person making our own choices as is possible, is I guess the underlying meaning.
As much as I have learned that there are many things in the world that aren't black and white, I guess I'd still like to believe there are some things that you can put your foot down about. But, maybe I'm wrong. Or at least, I have to reliaze that everyone's not going to put down their foot with me. We're all on the search for truth, I guess. What seems black and white to me may be a gray area to you. I guess for me it all boils down to, why do you believe something is a gray area, will anyone get truly hurt in the process, and how do we justify the decisions we make?
I think I'll take another break from the forums. I came across a quote recently that has resonated with me. Those who know speak little, and those who don't know speak a lot. I've been talking a lot lately. I think I'm going to go back to letting the world teach me.I like what you have to say here on the forums A Thousand Words in this thread and others. We may not exactly agree on some things and that's ok. I agree people need to make better decisions and not be careless with such important things. I like that quote. Take care.
Related Discussions
- 17
Do you believe that abortion is murder or is it just a choice?
by Dawn Bostick 15 years ago
Do you believe that abortion is murder or is it just a choice?
- 322
Every Dem Voted for Late Term Abortion Up to Nine Months?
by Jackie Lynnley 5 years ago
I read this was true and I just have to know if it is, please! Please provide links to prove what you say. Surely we are not going to be aborting babies ready to come into the world fully developed and healthy?
- 583
killing babies??
by Amber Musselman 15 years ago
OKAY... SO I WROTE A HUB ON ABORTION AND TIMOTHY LEFT A COMMENT (BELOW)AFTER THAT COMMENT IS MY RESPONSE----- TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK AND WHO DO YOU AGREE WITH!! timothy Carpenter says:I don't really think that abortion should be able to be done. I come from a...
- 162
Sex-selective abortions
by Holle Abee 12 years ago
What do you think? Do you think it's okay to wait until you're far enough along in a pregnancy to see if you're carrying a male or a female? And if it's not what you want, get an abortion for that reason alone? I could never do that.
- 84
Abortion Issues: Are You Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?
by sunasia22 12 years ago
Abortion is regarded as the most controversial issue in bioethics, law and politics worldwide. This issue has been subjected to fervent debates in many legal and ethical fora around the world. This is so because the issue at stake is not only human life, but also the many underlying...
- 204
Reducing Abortion Rate in the US
by Kathryn L Hill 5 years ago
Pro-Lifers are against abortion. They say the life of the fetus matters. They say the will of the mother, (not to be pregnant and not to have a child,) doesn't matter. (Its too late at that point.) The soul of the fetus is basically on a course toward full development and this process should not be...