Abortion

[pudding]

Against it, I think it's murder, have I evidence, no. But it is my personal belief.

I'd like to highlight the fact it is your personal belief. Personal belief can be compared to religious beliefs in that you can't force them upon others.

 

[klinneah]

Would you see a difference if the zygote became a tumor?

I would, yes. A tumor =/= a living child.

 

Just as an aside: I believe the "It's God's will!" excuse is disgusting. God does not will rape. Humans did that of their own free will. Else we would have no punishments for anything, would we. I wish there was more support for single mothers. Maybe fewer women would feel helpless against their situation if there was a safety net.*

 

That being said, I know the difference between my opinions/beliefs and the beliefs of people who know what they're talking about, so this is where I bow out of the discussion

[Riverwillows]

Never were truer words spoken....way to go, George!! RIP

 

 

~Image linked due to language.~

 

Edit by kiffren: Image linked due to language in image. Click at your own discretion. It contains a quote by George Carlin:

Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're ~Censor Evasion Removed~.

Edited May 14, 2013 by _Z_

[ShinyTomato]

I would, yes. A tumor =/= a living child.

 

So where do you draw the line? When does a "child" to you, become a tumor? It hasn't "died."

[Aingeal]

God does not will rape

 

A lot of people disagree with you and will cite scripture as proof, sad to say.

[Riverwillows]

Scripture that was written by MEN, males, etc. Who see women as chattel, and rape non-existant/men's rights to relieve themselves. Insecure men who need to force sex on a woman to feel powerful. etc etc.

 

Pretty poor "proof" in my opinion.

[NobleOwl]

Scripture that was written by MEN, males, etc. Who see women as chattel, and rape non-existant/men's rights to relieve themselves. Insecure men who need to force sex on a woman to feel powerful. etc etc.

 

Pretty poor "proof" in my opinion.

Let's not attack religion here. There are many different translations and such that it's impossible to actually judge the writer's intent based on a game of whisper down the lane.

[Riverwillows]

Wasn't attacking religion. Was attacking the so called "proof" that people use to say that God wills rape.

[NobleOwl]

Wasn't attacking religion. Was attacking the so called "proof" that people use to say that God wills rape.

By saying that scripture was written by men who see women as chattel.

 

Attack the interpretation not the words. Does that make sense?

[Riverwillows]

But...they DID!!

[NobleOwl]

But...they DID!!

And I disagree intensely.

[KageSora]

I'm sure some of them DID see women that way--just like some men today see women as toys and servants and objects for them to own.

 

And some of them didn't. Just like men today.

[TikindiDragon]

I just saw this and it pissed me off:

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/13...tside-marriage/

 

I hate to think what would have happened if she got pregnant from that ordeal. Would she have been allowed to get an abortion? Or forced to 'suffer the consequences of her 'irresponsibility'' by being forced to give birth?

O.O wow. While, yes, that's all pretty horrible it's got *nothing* on the comments section. Could you ahve found a more right-wing scource?

[Shienvien]

(And, my apologies if I misunderstood your post, but seeing defence of leaving people hooked to machines makes me very upset.)

I know cases where people who weren't supposed to ever wake up and where doctors actively attempted to convince the family to take them off life support ended up recovering to the point where they could continue living normal lives, without being hooked up to anything. I know that some of them would definitely not have preferred death and were in fact horrified afterwards themselves.

 

I myself am a person who would gladly have any kind of life as long as there is or would soon be an opportunity for me to at least get text on computer screen. And the technology to repair paralysis already exists (works on rats), so I, who I still consider myself a young person, would in many cases wait, quite simply. I've had other people say that they'd prefer to not let die no matter how bad their condition, too.

 

The thing is, people are different. In the end, some people might be kept alive against their will while others are being killed against their will or with no one even asking what they think. I agree with euthanasia for terminal cases (which would either end in death or eradication of the mind/personality), or things like full-body paralysis or "permanent" vegetable state, if the person him/herself has stated that this is what he/she wants. I will not necessarily like it unless I deem the case to be truly hopeless already, but I am nevertheless going to honor what the person wants in this case. (While I would still do everything in my power to stop a mostly healthy person I know from committing suicide. That's a bit different matter.)

[Slaskia]

O.O wow. While, yes, that's all pretty horrible it's got *nothing* on the comments section. Could you ahve found a more right-wing scource?

I don't read TheBlaze for their extreme right-wing nut case commenters (though it is hard to 'not' look at them and shake your head at them).

[Fuzzbucket]

DNR's notwithstanding, however.

 

I have a living will that states if I cannot live without a machine, I am to be pulled off it. You'd be surprised at how many people HAVE DNR's, but how FEW of them are honoured.

Exactly. That is why I have put the fear of ME into my family, doctors and lawyers !

[HeatherMarie]

There's one thing I honestly just don't get about the entire abortion debate, and that is: When does a woman's body stop being her own?

 

I can get prescriptions for drugs that will kill my kidneys and my liver (just using that since I *was* on a drug that was doing that). I can go into the hospital with somesuch condition and sign a *piece of paper* to *allow* them to do life-threatening surgery on me. I can cut myself, I can kill myself. It is MY body. And NONE of those things are illegal.

 

And yet getting rid of a parasite in my body that might kill me is so horribly wrong *just* because it *might* become an actual child, no matter what the physical/mental cost to me? ...... I just don't get it. Where's the difference?

[KageSora]

There's one thing I honestly just don't get about the entire abortion debate, and that is: When does a woman's body stop being her own?

 

I can get prescriptions for drugs that will kill my kidneys and my liver (just using that since I *was* on a drug that was doing that). I can go into the hospital with somesuch condition and sign a *piece of paper* to *allow* them to do life-threatening surgery on me. I can cut myself, I can kill myself. It is MY body. And NONE of those things are illegal.

 

And yet getting rid of a parasite in my body that might kill me is so horribly wrong *just* because it *might* become an actual child, no matter what the physical/mental cost to me? ...... I just don't get it. Where's the difference?

See, what you don't understand is that the minute you get a fertalized egg in you, then you cease being a human being and become a meatsack broodmare. THAT is where you're not understanding this.

 

 

All sarcasm aside, that's honestly the only possible reasoning I can see--the minute you're pregnant you stop being human in their eyes and become a walking incubator. That is literally the only conclusion I've ever been able to draw.

 

And that's for the ones who DO think about the mother.

 

A lot of times, people just don't actually take the woman into consideration. I didn't, back when I was a more traditional pro-lifer. But then I started realizing what could happen to a woman (and the child) if a pregnancy and birth were against her will, and then I started realizing that to be truly pro-life I had to want what was best for the woman, too. Thankfully, not taking the woman into consideration can sometimes be changed with education and more information.

 

Not giving two s about the woman, however, is probably not going to be fixed by the same information not taking her into consideration might and is a symptom of a larger problem of women = objects, I think.

Edited May 15, 2013 by KageSora

[Spelunker]

See, what you don't understand is that the minute you get a fertalized egg in you, then you cease being a human being and become a meatsack broodmare.

This is the pro-life movement in a nutshell.

[TikindiDragon]

Then there's the ones who think you need to be punished for daring to have sex, Kage. They not only don't care, they actively think you deserve it.

[NobleOwl]

Then, to be fair, there are those who believe (however misled you may think they are) that sacrificing one life for the good of another is morally wrong.

 

Now I don't agree, and I don't see how they come to this position and (most) still hold a belief in Jesus' sacrifice, but there are those who honestly believe it's wrong and that the mother and fetus's value is equal.

 

I personally held this view until I had a long talk with several rabbis, because I had issues with the Tanakh explicitly giving instructions for a test that would result in abortion in some cases. Until I realised that G-d said that a fetus wasn't a human life, I had trouble.

 

Interestingly, today I ran into someone who is very pro-life, and she was telling me that her cat got pregnant and she found out when she went to have the cat fixed. The vet told her and she went ahead and did it anyway, despite knowing it would abort the kittens.

 

I found it very interesting. Does anyone have any ideas why this might be? I would have asked, but I didn't want to get in another heated debate that would have resulted in her not speaking to me for a month.

[Slaskia]

Interestingly, today I ran into someone who is very pro-life, and she was telling me that her cat got pregnant and she found out when she went to have the cat fixed. The vet told her and she went ahead and did it anyway, despite knowing it would abort the kittens.

 

I found it very interesting. Does anyone have any ideas why this might be? I would have asked, but I didn't want to get in another heated debate that would have resulted in her not speaking to me for a month.

My guess is, is that many people (religious or otherwise) hold the belief that animals are 'below' them, which would mean of course that their lives don't mean nearly as much as a fetus' life. So to them, giving a cat an abortion (essentially, by having it fixed), is not a sin/morally wrong.

[TikindiDragon]

My guess is, is that many people (religious or otherwise) hold the belief that animals are 'below' them, which would mean of course that their lives don't mean nearly as much as a fetus' life. So to them, giving a cat an abortion (essentially, by having it fixed), is not a sin/morally wrong.

^

 

This. I know it's a firmly held belief by many that an animal does not have a soul of any kind; it follows that there is therefore no sin in killing it. Their lives, quite literally, are not worth anything except as they impact upon humans.

 

(Although, as a side thought, she should have got the cat fixed to start with if she hadn't been prepared to deal with kittens )

[Alpha1]

I found it very interesting. Does anyone have any ideas why this might be? I would have asked, but I didn't want to get in another heated debate that would have resulted in her not speaking to me for a month.

Ensoulment at conception for humans. Or if animals do have a soul, it's "lesser".

 

You believe the "breath of life". That's similar. There's not much difference between a baby still in the womb and its head coming out of the birth canal.

 

 

[TCA]

Interestingly, today I ran into someone who is very pro-life, and she was telling me that her cat got pregnant and she found out when she went to have the cat fixed. The vet told her and she went ahead and did it anyway, despite knowing it would abort the kittens.

 

I found it very interesting. Does anyone have any ideas why this might be? I would have asked, but I didn't want to get in another heated debate that would have resulted in her not speaking to me for a month.

To me this sounds horribly hypocritical and I'd give this lady a stern talking-to, given the chance, even considering that some people believe animals lack souls.

 

 

 

 

 

You know, morally I feel like abortions after the point where the baby could survive outside the womb are wrong without a strong health reason such as horrible birth defects that the baby can't have a normal life or the mother will die or something. I mean, if you're gonna abort it, then do it when it's inarguably impossible for the thing to live on its own or feel anything, and before the pregnancy has time to affect you.

 

That said, I'd feel bad blanket-banning late abortions outside of physical health concerns just because there's always someone who happens to fall in that category who would suffer in horrible ways if they had to keep the baby, and I'd rather have extra abortions (even if they bother me a bit) and keep those people from suffering than the alternative.

 

The mother will always be more important to me because she's already rational and capable of experiencing suffering, and the zygote/embryo/fetus is not and possibly won't be for at least a couple months after popping out! Preventing suffering is kind of a thing that I consider to be the main measure of whether or not things are right. Though you never really know if you're preventing suffering or causing it, you have to try.

 

With the question of dropping the petri dish with a zygote or a newborn baby, I'd save the baby, because it's closer to being a rational being capable of experiencing suffering. That's just my thoughts, sorry for boring you guys.