|
Post by Vypernight on Apr 10, 2009 6:22:23 GMT -5
My thoughts on abortion:
Short answer: I'm a guy. I have no say in the matter.
Long answer: Too many variables exist for me to take one side or another. It's each person's choice to make.
What I Am against are people preaching, "Pro Life!" then shooting a doctor. I also agree with what Armand said a while back; that the people who push so much for the life of the child don't give a flying #%$@ about it once it's born. If it's not your 'kid,' you don't get a say in the matter. Simple as that.
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Apr 10, 2009 7:54:27 GMT -5
I guess I should have clarified. I don't think we should outlaw it entirely (I think it's Nicaragua that did that). Health reasons, of course, and rape legitimize abortion. I also see no problem with the morning after pill. But after the first trimester, I DO think that only health reasons can justify abortion. Because honestly, who's to say when sentience begins? Babies cannot speak, yet we all assume that they are fully human. I think that just the risk of ending a life should give anyone pause. And as for the rarity, I think that many non-theists "zig" because so many theists "zag." The tongues-speaking crowd have done the pro-life movement more harm than Gloria Steinem and Peter Singer could ever hope to do. By this definition, you're nowhere near alone, and secular pro lifers aren't rare at all.
|
|
|
Post by Armand Tanzarian on Apr 10, 2009 8:14:32 GMT -5
I guess I should have clarified. I don't think we should outlaw it entirely (I think it's Nicaragua that did that). Health reasons, of course, and rape legitimize abortion. I also see no problem with the morning after pill. But after the first trimester, I DO think that only health reasons can justify abortion. Because honestly, who's to say when sentience begins? Babies cannot speak, yet we all assume that they are fully human. I think that just the risk of ending a life should give anyone pause. And as for the rarity, I think that many non-theists "zig" because so many theists "zag." The tongues-speaking crowd have done the pro-life movement more harm than Gloria Steinem and Peter Singer could ever hope to do. By this definition, you're nowhere near alone, and secular pro lifers aren't rare at all. What she said. No one WANTS abortion per se, everyone would like to reduce them as much as possible. But we recognize that as long as teenagers and young people will fuck, someone's gonna get pregnant against their will. And that abortion is the final resort of any pregnant woman.
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Apr 10, 2009 8:51:20 GMT -5
Yeah, I don't know any woman who's had an abortion without some serious thought into it. And most of those same women find it a horrific concept. But Hell, what we like and what is necessary aren't always the same. And we have to be realistic. Ideally, there would be no abortions. Realistically, we do need them.
|
|
tyler
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by tyler on Apr 10, 2009 10:14:29 GMT -5
My thoughts on abortion: Short answer: I'm a guy. I have no say in the matter. Long answer: Too many variables exist for me to take one side or another. It's each person's choice to make. What I Am against are people preaching, "Pro Life!" then shooting a doctor. I also agree with what Armand said a while back; that the people who push so much for the life of the child don't give a flying #%$@ about it once it's born. If it's not your 'kid,' you don't get a say in the matter. Simple as that. Using that logic, if it's not your 'kid' you don't get a say in the matter, wouldn't that apply to parents who kill their children outside the womb as well? If the basis for your argument is that nobody has a "say" about killing a baby (as they see it) because it's not their kid, then that reason should apply across the board.
|
|
tyler
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by tyler on Apr 10, 2009 10:19:58 GMT -5
Yeah, I don't know any woman who's had an abortion without some serious thought into it. And most of those same women find it a horrific concept. But Hell, what we like and what is necessary aren't always the same. And we have to be realistic. Ideally, there would be no abortions. Realistically, we do need them. Help me understand. Why is it such a difficult thing for someone who doesn't consider it to be murder or the taking of a life? I know that if I saw it that way, if it was just a choice to have a medical procedure and had no moral or ethical repercussions as the pro-choice folks indicate, then why do so many pro-choice people still say things like "I don't know any woman who's had an abortion without some serious thought into it", or "and most of those same women find it a horrific concept" or "Ideally, there would be no abortions" I would think that if you are pro-choice then you would think "Ideally there would be LOTS of abortions" and it wouldn't be any more serious a thought than if you were getting a wart removed. There just seems to be a big discrepancy between what is said by pro-choice people and what they push for in terms of abortion "rights".
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Apr 10, 2009 10:36:40 GMT -5
Yeah, I don't know any woman who's had an abortion without some serious thought into it. And most of those same women find it a horrific concept. But Hell, what we like and what is necessary aren't always the same. And we have to be realistic. Ideally, there would be no abortions. Realistically, we do need them. Help me understand. Why is it such a difficult thing for someone who doesn't consider it to be murder or the taking of a life? I know that if I saw it that way, if it was just a choice to have a medical procedure and had no moral or ethical repercussions as the pro-choice folks indicate, then why do so many pro-choice people still say things like "I don't know any woman who's had an abortion without some serious thought into it", or "and most of those same women find it a horrific concept" or "Ideally, there would be no abortions" I would think that if you are pro-choice then you would think "Ideally there would be LOTS of abortions" and it wouldn't be any more serious a thought than if you were getting a wart removed. There just seems to be a big discrepancy between what is said by pro-choice people and what they push for in terms of abortion "rights". Very simple. I would assume that you agree that a nation has the right to defend itself, i.e. wage war. Does this mean that you actually want your country to get into a war? Most sane people would rather not, it is an option of last resort when all other avenues have been exhausted. Abortion should not be considered your first chioce for contraception, it should be your last choice, but it should be a choice that is available to those who choose to exercise it.
|
|
|
Post by Armand Tanzarian on Apr 10, 2009 10:39:55 GMT -5
Because, for so many women, the question becomes "Do I really want to bring a child into a world where I cannot take care of it sufficiently"? Maternal instinct does kick in at that point, and women do treat that little clump of cells like its a fully functioning creature. Too often we see illegitimate children being treated horribly by their parents, continuing this cycle of teenage pregnancies and unneeded emtional strain on the woman.
I'm a man, but I'll speak for the rest of us. Whether we think of a fetus as an alive being or not, we'd like to reduce abortions, that's the one thing you and I have in common. But the reasons, and the way we do it, vary. While the pro-life side vivaciously tries to ban abortion federally, we know that creates an unsafe environment for women performing illegal abortions, because they'll attempt it anyway. Rather, we need to go around and educate people. There are more ways, better ways, to reduce abortions than actually banning them outright. Education, contraception programs, etc. have proven to be better than merely criminalizing the procedure.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Apr 10, 2009 11:11:51 GMT -5
I remained pro-life even after my deconversion. Then I read this blogpost, and adopted this as my new position: The fetus, in its earliest stages, is human only in the genetic sense. It is brain dead at first (lacking a brain at all for quite a while) and after that has mental activity that is more comparable to that of a mouse or other small mammal than a human*. It lacks complex thoughts and emotions, or any of the things that give our lives meaning. By destroying it, we're ending only two things; a clump of differentiated organic matter with human DNA (a category my tonsils and appendix would also fall into--is having an appendectomy or tonsillectomy murder?) and potential. And if destroying potential is immoral, then we're all horrible people, since the web of cause and effect is so complex that we destroy (and create) potential merely by existing. Late-term abortions make me a bit more uncomfortable, though, and partial birth abortion is just barbaric. *This argument should not be interpreted as a belief that either mice or fetuses are worthless. However, the benefits of destroying them sometimes outweighs the moral problems.
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Apr 10, 2009 11:16:21 GMT -5
Help me understand. Why is it such a difficult thing for someone who doesn't consider it to be murder or the taking of a life? I know that if I saw it that way, if it was just a choice to have a medical procedure and had no moral or ethical repercussions as the pro-choice folks indicate, then why do so many pro-choice people still say things like "I don't know any woman who's had an abortion without some serious thought into it", or "and most of those same women find it a horrific concept" or "Ideally, there would be no abortions" I would think that if you are pro-choice then you would think "Ideally there would be LOTS of abortions" and it wouldn't be any more serious a thought than if you were getting a wart removed. There just seems to be a big discrepancy between what is said by pro-choice people and what they push for in terms of abortion "rights". So if you don't think it's murder the flip side is that it's no more serious than having a wart removed? I can't see how that's the immediate alternative, or why we'd want to see more abortions in the world. A lot of women who have abortions still want kids; they merely cannot support one, or would have to alter their lives significantly. A lot of women aren't against breeding, but simply don't want a child. They don't want other people to abort their fetuses; they simply want the option to not be tied to kids for the "crime" of being born with the ability to house a child. Birth control and abortions allow women to be people instead of broodmares. Not only that, but a wart removal is very superficial. Physiologically, psychologically, it's a big deal. This happens whether you think it's "murder" or not. The wart comparison seems like a strawman to me, though maybe you actually do think the two are comparable. The war analogy is actually pretty apt. You don't want it to happen, but if there is a danger to the nation, you'd want the capacity to be there. You don't want a woman to get raped, but you want laws in place for when it happens.
|
|
|
Post by katsuro on Apr 10, 2009 13:04:29 GMT -5
I just happen to think that nobody should be denied the chance to experience life. Don't mean to be a prick here, but by that logic you must be against contraceptives and the morning after pill too? As someone else already pointed out, abortions are carried out on fetuses that are little more than a clump of cells. They're not conscious. They can barely be said to even be alive at all. Therefore abortions don't take a life they merely prevent it from happening, which makes it basically the same as contraceptives, morning after pill etc etc. Also, people are denied a chance at life by nature constantly, as well as by couples not having sex at every available opportunity when the girlfriend, wife or whoever is able to conceive. I'm not saying that your opinion is wrong, I just find that particular argument to be heavily flawed on multiple levels.
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Apr 10, 2009 13:31:52 GMT -5
I don't think anyone really likes abortion. If I thought every unwanted baby was going to get adopted I would be pro-life. Unfortunately, I know many unwanted babies wont get adopted because many of them are not healthy and, more importantly, many of them are not white. Quoted for the motherfucking truth. I'm not pro-choice because I hate babies. I'm pro-choice due to the fact that we're living on an over-crowded planet with very limited living space left. I'm pro-choice because I believe in free will and no one should be able to tell anyone what to do with their body. I'm also pro-choice because I don't believe in life starting at conception. Ironbite-...I've lost my train of thought. I'm prochoice because I believe that if you remove a woman's control over her own body, you have relegated her to something less than full human. If we give a fetus, however developed, more ethical priority than the born, breathing woman who is carrying it and giving it life from her very body every second of the day, what does that say about what we are doing to the ethical viewpoint of women? That is the problem I have with that. I will not reduce the humanity of one group of born people to that of a gestating womb, which is in effect what you're doing when you say a woman should be forced to carry a baby to term and deliver it. I refuse to do that. That, to me, is more inhumane than any act of denying birth or refusing to acknowledge "sentience" an unborn child may (or may not) have.
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Apr 10, 2009 13:42:29 GMT -5
DV, that was really well said.
|
|
nuitarihw
Junior Member
What's holding up is a mirror
Posts: 90
|
Post by nuitarihw on Apr 10, 2009 14:10:26 GMT -5
I guess I should have clarified. I don't think we should outlaw it entirely (I think it's Nicaragua that did that). Health reasons, of course, and rape legitimize abortion. I also see no problem with the morning after pill. But after the first trimester, I DO think that only health reasons can justify abortion. Because honestly, who's to say when sentience begins? Babies cannot speak, yet we all assume that they are fully human. I think that just the risk of ending a life should give anyone pause. And as for the rarity, I think that many non-theists "zig" because so many theists "zag." The tongues-speaking crowd have done the pro-life movement more harm than Gloria Steinem and Peter Singer could ever hope to do. I'm curious, do you consider this just to be your opinion, and thus are willing to live by it, but fine with other people living by their own opinion on the matter, or would you want it banned outside of the areas you deemed, "justifiable"? Just curious, because one of the main problems I have with pro-lifers is the fact that they want their view to be enforced on those who disagree...Their opinion isn't good enough just for them, but everyone must follow their ideals...Although that tends to be the religious viewpoint as well, so maybe that's the relation.
|
|
|
Post by Armand Tanzarian on Apr 10, 2009 15:11:51 GMT -5
I'm prochoice because I believe that if you remove a woman's control over her own body, you have relegated her to something less than full human. If we give a fetus, however developed, more ethical priority than the born, breathing woman who is carrying it and giving it life from her very body every second of the day, what does that say about what we are doing to the ethical viewpoint of women? That is the problem I have with that. I will not reduce the humanity of one group of born people to that of a gestating womb, which is in effect what you're doing when you say a woman should be forced to carry a baby to term and deliver it. I refuse to do that. That, to me, is more inhumane than any act of denying birth or refusing to acknowledge "sentience" an unborn child may (or may not) have. Best response here. Thank you for eloquently putting it in words while I just tripped all over myself.
|
|