And here's a question for people on the other side.
Do you believe a winning jackpot lottery ticket is worthless because it hasn't been cashed in yet?
if you have no intention of cashing it in, didnt want to buy the ticket, and are opposed to the lottery, you should be entitled to throw it away. becos yes, it only has worth IF it is cashed in. otherwise, it's just a piece of paper.
are you kidding me?
how is making the hardest decision of your life taking the easy way out?
deciding whether or not to continue with a pregnancy is the most soul searching decision a woman can make. it is not an easy thing by any stretch of the imagination. and i take offense at your trivialising of the matter. you make it sound as if deciding to terminate a pregnancy is as flippant a decision as what flavour ice cream to buy. it is not.
it is to a guy who will never have to be pregnant... they assume it is as easy a chioce for her to make as it is for him to pressure her into having sex without a condom.
I see your point. But it's pretty much taking the easy way out. I don't think that is taking responsibility... it's more like just getting rid of it.
And just because a child isn't aborted doesn't mean that he'll have a bad life. You have to give the kid a chance. And if you ask me, having ANY life is better than no life at all... but that's probably another area where we'll disagree.
What on earth is wrong with not having a child that you don't want? If this is not about when life begins, what is wrong with just getting rid of it?
Everything we do has consequences, that's inescapable. Usually there is a range of options available to us, and the ultimate outcome is determined by each of our choices along the way. A particular action doesn't lead to a particular consequence, but to another set of options that will possibly determine some sort of ultimate consequence. Sometimes society steps in and imposes an ultimate consequence as punishment for what we all agree is bad behavior. Usually that punishment takes the form of fines and/or jail time.
I don't see sex, even unprotected sex, as the sort of behavior that society has any business penalizing. I don't think that having a child you don't want and don't have the means to care for can in any way be called "responsible."
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
I don't see sex, even unprotected sex, as the sort of behavior that society has any business penalizing. I don't think that having a child you don't want and don't have the means to care for can in any way be called "responsible."
People have to deal with consequences for their actions..and they dont because people like you in society justify their failure.
If you have unprotected sex YOU HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE CONSEQUENCES. The fact that you have an abortion shows how irresponsible of a person you actually are.
People have to deal with consequences for their actions..and they dont because people like you in society justify their failure.
If you have unprotected sex YOU HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE CONSEQUENCES. The fact that you have an abortion shows how irresponsible of a person you actually are.
Abortion is a consequence.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
ah, but see... this debate for you has nothing to do with valuing the life of a baby. it's about making sure those women "take responsibility" (basically, bear the punishment) of having sex. becos, YOUR argument has no response to the fact that the baby conceived by rape is still a baby, still a viable, innocent human being. so why should it be punished becos of its father's actions? just becos it's father was a criminal who committed a horrific act does not mean that baby should bear the consquences of that. you're still killing an innocent child, based on the sins of its father. if this is truly about protecting innocent human life, there is no way that is justifiable.
There are many factors going in to why I am against abortion. Responsibility is a big part of it, yeah. But saving a human life has a lot to do with it as well.
In that post, I was defending the responsibility aspect of my opinion. It doesn't mean there aren't other reasons why I am against abortion.
It's a town full of losers and I'm pulling out of here to win
you know sometimes despite taking the birth control precautions recommended one does end up pregnant. one has been responsible for their behaviour and yet still finds herself in this predicament.
I've said this before, and I'll say it again. Anytime you have sex, protected or unprotected, you are undergoing a risk that you should be prepared to deal with if things don't turn out like you hope.
Can't say I blame you for not reading every page of this thread, though.
It's a town full of losers and I'm pulling out of here to win
I've said this before, and I'll say it again. Anytime you have sex, protected or unprotected, you are undergoing a risk that you should be prepared to deal with if things don't turn out like you hope.
Can't say I blame you for not reading every page of this thread, though.
Of course you have to be prepared to deal with it. Abortion is one way of dealing with it.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
Of course you have to be prepared to deal with it. Abortion is one way of dealing with it.
That's an interesting case you make. But I don't feel that abortion is the right way to deal with it...
...which takes us back to the moral aspect of the debate. This argument has finally reached that point for me where arguing just feels pointless. So now I'm going to resist the urge to respond and just let it go. It's been an interesting debate though, so thanks everyone.
It's a town full of losers and I'm pulling out of here to win
I've said this before, and I'll say it again. Anytime you have sex, protected or unprotected, you are undergoing a risk that you should be prepared to deal with if things don't turn out like you hope.
I know that you've taken the position that both men and women are responsible for the baby once its born, and that both must take responsibility.
Obviously, in this view, the way that women have to take responsibility is by carrying the pregnancy to term (and then deciding what to do). I wonder how you propose forcing men to take responsibility. What do men have to do for the 9 months of gestation, not to mention once the baby is born.
I don't doubt your sincerity about wanting both men and women to take responsibility for unwanted pregnancies -- I just wonder what it would look like.
"Things will just get better and better even though it
doesn't feel that way right now. That's the hopeful
idea . . . Hope didn't get much applause . . .
Hope! Hope is the underdog!"
That's an interesting case you make. But I don't feel that abortion is the right way to deal with it...
...which takes us back to the moral aspect of the debate. This argument has finally reached that point for me where arguing just feels pointless. So now I'm going to resist the urge to respond and just let it go. It's been an interesting debate though, so thanks everyone.
Where it takes us back to is you wanting to enact legislation that's binding on the entire population, based on nothing more than your feelings.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
it is to a guy who will never have to be pregnant... they assume it is as easy a chioce for her to make as it is for him to pressure her into having sex without a condom.
What about woman who are against abortion?
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane.
Ummmm . . . Roe v. Wade is a Supreme Court decision, not legislation.
And what Roe v. Wade said was NOT that women could have abortions on demand.
What the Supreme Court DID say in Roe v. Wade was that states had the right to regulate pregnancy throughout a woman's pregnancy. They just couldn't outlaw abortion in the first three months. But after the first three months, states could engage in further regulation to protect the fetus and impose greater restrictions on a woman's right to terminate the pregnancy.
In the aftermath of Roe, states began to vary in the way they regulated pregnancy. So while it's relatively easy to get an abortion in states like California and New York, it's much harder in places like Utah and Missouri and Pennsylvania.
(Personally, I think Roe v. Wade should be required reading in high school. Everyone has fierce opinions about it, but hardly anyone has actually read the damn thing.)
"Things will just get better and better even though it
doesn't feel that way right now. That's the hopeful
idea . . . Hope didn't get much applause . . .
Hope! Hope is the underdog!"
There are many factors going in to why I am against abortion. Responsibility is a big part of it, yeah. But saving a human life has a lot to do with it as well.
In that post, I was defending the responsibility aspect of my opinion. It doesn't mean there aren't other reasons why I am against abortion.
there are 2 courses here and you refuse to answer to one of them:
abortion is about responsibility. fine. i disagree and see abortion as being a valid and responsible choice. you do not.
abortion is about innocent life. then how can abortion in rape cases still be acceptable? it is still the murder of an innocent life?
you either believe one, the other, or both. if it is about innocent life, then you are inconsistent. if it is about responsibility, then we can debate on that point. but you need to pick your argument. is the fetus an innocent life that should not be murdered by abortion, or is it not? if it is, why is it suddenly ok to murder this innocent life just becos its father was a criminal? if it is not, we can talk about responsibility.
I've said this before, and I'll say it again. Anytime you have sex, protected or unprotected, you are undergoing a risk that you should be prepared to deal with if things don't turn out like you hope.
Can't say I blame you for not reading every page of this thread, though.
and t=some choose to deal with it by having an abortion. if the fetus is not alive, this is no problem (outside of the fact that it allows women to have sex more freely). if the fetus is alive, again, i ask you to give me a straight answer as to why it is ok to murder this innocent life becos of its father's sins?
Roe v. Wade does not compel anyone to have an abortion.
no, but it is, as you stated, basically legislation that's binding on the entire population, based on nothing more than your feelings. it compels those who belive it is murder or at least the ending of an innocent life to stand by and allow others to kill without recourse.
just as you state that a fetus is inert, i state that it is not. they are both opinions, right? my opinion is not based on religion, it is based in the science of the act of fertilization. i say that as soon as there's electricity, that's life. you say that as soon as there's breath, that's life. the law (or court ruling) is based on interpretation. opinion. feelings.
If the mother is raped, she didn't choose to get pregnant. In that case, it itsn't about responsibility. It's about a situation that could do serious emotional damage to her.
If the mother's life is in danger, how can anyone assume to have the moral superiority to tell her that she has to possibly die in order to give birth to a baby that may not survive the birth itself? It's easy for staunch pro-lifers to say that it doesn't matter, but I doubt you'd many (if any) of them who wouldn't abandon their belief the moment they were faced with that situation themselves.
I disagree with people who get multiple abortions as a means of birth control, but I'm realistic enough to know that there is no way to prevent that without completely outlawing abortions, and I don't think that's right.
no, but it is, as you stated, basically legislation that's binding on the entire population, based on nothing more than your feelings. it compels those who belive it is murder or at least the ending of an innocent life to stand by and allow others to kill without recourse.
just as you state that a fetus is inert, i state that it is not. they are both opinions, right? my opinion is not based on religion, it is based in the science of the act of fertilization. i say that as soon as there's electricity, that's life. you say that as soon as there's breath, that's life. the law (or court ruling) is based on interpretation. opinion. feelings.
You're right, we're never going to agree or to change one another's minds. And yes, it is a matter of opinion on both sides. The best we can do under those circumstances is to allow each person to decide for themselves and live their lives accordingly. I'm perfectly willing to do that.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
I haven't read all the pages of posts (sheesh, it would take forever), but my take is that men should hardly have any credibility of opinion in regards to this debate. Unless you all can carry a baby for nine months in the womb, my feeling is that you have no say in the matter. JMHO.
Let's say, for arguement's sake, that abortion clinics were outlawed, and Roe vs. Wade was overturned. How do those who are pro-life expect things to pan out? Would you personally adopt these babies that were born unwanted? I feel that you should, seeing that it's such a passionate belief of some of you, and you should be held responsible for your beliefs. How would you feel about the women who would die getting an illegal abortion by some voodoo doctor with a coat hanger? How about the women and girls who were raped and forced to have the babies of their rapist? How do you feel about overpopulation? This is an issue, since we now have reached 300,000 billion.
there are 2 courses here and you refuse to answer to one of them:
abortion is about responsibility. fine. i disagree and see abortion as being a valid and responsible choice. you do not.
abortion is about innocent life. then how can abortion in rape cases still be acceptable? it is still the murder of an innocent life?
you either believe one, the other, or both. if it is about innocent life, then you are inconsistent. if it is about responsibility, then we can debate on that point. but you need to pick your argument. is the fetus an innocent life that should not be murdered by abortion, or is it not? if it is, why is it suddenly ok to murder this innocent life just becos its father was a criminal? if it is not, we can talk about responsibility.
I think beyond religion there is difficulty in justifying pro-life stances. Just like beyond religion its hard to justify banning homosexuality in a liberal democracy like America. The post I quote from soulsinging demonstrates that if one were being consistent talking about killing a life, then abortion should be illegal full stop. No compromise can be made for rape or any practical reason. If your morals come from religion then it's easier to adopt a strict and external moral code.
In any case I dont think the state should tell people what they can or cannot do. If I were a woman I would not abort. If my daughter had a pregnancy I would persuade her not to abort unless its a rape, on religious grounds. But that's my private choice to make. It's the woman's body and she has to bear the cost of going through with pregnancy and the upbringing of the child, with all the psychological repercussions. I fully understand the pro-choice position.
Read Judith Jarvis Thomson's essay on this. It's one of the best pro choice arguments ever presented.
I've seen so many people try and copy Eddie Vedder's voice. It's as if if you don't sound like him you're not a man. - Emmett Roslan
I think beyond religion there is difficulty in justifying pro-life stances. Just like beyond religion its hard to justify banning homosexuality in a liberal democracy like America. The post I quote from soulsinging demonstrates that if one were being consistent talking about killing a life, then abortion should be illegal full stop. No compromise can be made for rape or any practical reason. If your morals come from religion then it's easier to adopt a strict and external moral code.
I think that even on the strictest grounds, abortion to save the life of the mother would be permitted. Most religions allow you to kill in self-defense.
In any case I dont think the state should tell people what they can or cannot do. If I were a woman I would not abort. If my daughter had a pregnancy I would persuade her not to abort unless its a rape, on religious grounds. But that's my private choice to make. It's the woman's body and she has to bear the cost of going through with pregnancy and the upbringing of the child, with all the psychological repercussions. I fully understand the pro-choice position.
Read Judith Jarvis Thomson's essay on this. It's one of the best pro choice arguments ever presented.
I think beyond religion there is difficulty in justifying pro-life stances. .
This is untrue. There is no difficulty at all. It all comes down to whether or not one views abortion as the killing of a child. Those opposed to abortion, obviously believe that it is, while those unopposed, apparently feel that it isn't. There are plenty of complete atheists who are opposed to abortion for this very reason. You don't have to be religious to know that killing is wrong. You don't have to be religious to view abortion as killing. On the same note, you don't have to be an atheist to believe that abortion does not equate to killing children.
Complicated made simple:
There are plenty of people who, "beyond religion", are opposed to abortion.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
This is untrue. There is no difficulty at all. It all comes down to whether or not one views abortion as the killing of a child. Those opposed to abortion, obviously believe that it is, while those unopposed, apparently feel that it isn't. There are plenty of complete atheists who are opposed to abortion for this very reason. You don't have to be religious to know that killing is wrong. You don't have to be religious to view abortion as killing. On the same note, you don't have to be an atheist to believe that abortion does not equate to killing children.
Complicated made simple:
There are plenty of people who, "beyond religion", are opposed to abortion.
precisely. i have strong reservations about abortion and see a very big grey area in the whole alive/not alive distinction. it makes me uncomfortable, but not so much that i can justify outlawing it on my own doubts.
now im gonna quote my own post, cos as soon as i posed that question the pro-lifers ran like frightened cockroaches in the face of their own contradictions (not you).
there are 2 courses here and you refuse to answer to one of them:
abortion is about responsibility. fine. i disagree and see abortion as being a valid and responsible choice. you do not.
abortion is about innocent life. then how can abortion in rape cases still be acceptable? it is still the murder of an innocent life?
you either believe one, the other, or both. if it is about innocent life, then you are inconsistent. if it is about responsibility, then we can debate on that point. but you need to pick your argument. is the fetus an innocent life that should not be murdered by abortion, or is it not? if it is, why is it suddenly ok to murder this innocent life just becos its father was a criminal? if it is not, we can talk about responsibility.
what, the pro-lifers have no logical response to this?
This is untrue. There is no difficulty at all. It all comes down to whether or not one views abortion as the killing of a child. Those opposed to abortion, obviously believe that it is, while those unopposed, apparently feel that it isn't. There are plenty of complete atheists who are opposed to abortion for this very reason. You don't have to be religious to know that killing is wrong. You don't have to be religious to view abortion as killing. On the same note, you don't have to be an atheist to believe that abortion does not equate to killing children.
Complicated made simple:
There are plenty of people who, "beyond religion", are opposed to abortion.
Not exactly. Even if you justify a pro-life stance by saying that a fetus is a living being, you;re faced with the argument of whether it is your right to make the mother 'suffer' for 9 months, especially if she never intended to have a baby.
Like I said read Thomson's piece. She starts off with the presumption that the fetus IS a human.
Then she gives this analogy. You are kidnapped by the Society of Music Lovers, and you have to lie in bed for 9 months with a tube connecting you to this genius musician who can only live if you make this sacrifice for 9 months. You and only you can do this; no other person can.
If you don't, this musician will die.
Now, should you be forced to sacrifice 9 months of your life to save his?
The situation becomes more complex when YOUR life is also put at risk whilst being forced to save this man's life.
Anyhow, forget that your life is ever at risk. Just think about the moral justification of forcing YOU to save another person's life. If you choose to lie in bed with a tube connecting you to this man to save him then its very generous of you. But does the Society of Music Lovers have any right whatsoever to FORCE you to do something you dont want to do in order to save him?
See these analogies. The SOciety of Music Lovers may feel that the musician is a HUGE asset to the association or even to society, but do they have any right to force their views upon you? I may think that all effort must be done to save the fetus and allow it to see the world and experience life as God intended him/her to. But do I have a right to force other people to do something they dont want to?
Al Qaeda may think America is full of shit and that they are morally corrupt. But do they have the right to come into your country and tell you how to behave? Bush may think (yeah right) that Iraqi society is backward and democracy is the best form of governance, but does he have the right to go in and change the whole system as he sees fit?
Basic right wing/left wing divide I suppose. Individual liberty vs State intervention
Thats why I think beynd religion you'll never be able to conclusively defend your pro life position; pro life meaning making abortion an illegal act. (THIS IS BY NO MEANS A PRO RELIGION POST IM ONLY TRYING TO BE OBJECTIVE)
Remember, this is from the basis that a fetus is a living thing. Nevermind if it isnt!
I've seen so many people try and copy Eddie Vedder's voice. It's as if if you don't sound like him you're not a man. - Emmett Roslan
Comments
if you have no intention of cashing it in, didnt want to buy the ticket, and are opposed to the lottery, you should be entitled to throw it away. becos yes, it only has worth IF it is cashed in. otherwise, it's just a piece of paper.
it is to a guy who will never have to be pregnant... they assume it is as easy a chioce for her to make as it is for him to pressure her into having sex without a condom.
Everything we do has consequences, that's inescapable. Usually there is a range of options available to us, and the ultimate outcome is determined by each of our choices along the way. A particular action doesn't lead to a particular consequence, but to another set of options that will possibly determine some sort of ultimate consequence. Sometimes society steps in and imposes an ultimate consequence as punishment for what we all agree is bad behavior. Usually that punishment takes the form of fines and/or jail time.
I don't see sex, even unprotected sex, as the sort of behavior that society has any business penalizing. I don't think that having a child you don't want and don't have the means to care for can in any way be called "responsible."
People have to deal with consequences for their actions..and they dont because people like you in society justify their failure.
If you have unprotected sex YOU HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE CONSEQUENCES. The fact that you have an abortion shows how irresponsible of a person you actually are.
There are many factors going in to why I am against abortion. Responsibility is a big part of it, yeah. But saving a human life has a lot to do with it as well.
In that post, I was defending the responsibility aspect of my opinion. It doesn't mean there aren't other reasons why I am against abortion.
I mistake that I admit I made.
But the decision is easier for some than it is for others.
I've said this before, and I'll say it again. Anytime you have sex, protected or unprotected, you are undergoing a risk that you should be prepared to deal with if things don't turn out like you hope.
Can't say I blame you for not reading every page of this thread, though.
That's an interesting case you make. But I don't feel that abortion is the right way to deal with it...
...which takes us back to the moral aspect of the debate. This argument has finally reached that point for me where arguing just feels pointless. So now I'm going to resist the urge to respond and just let it go. It's been an interesting debate though, so thanks everyone.
Obviously, in this view, the way that women have to take responsibility is by carrying the pregnancy to term (and then deciding what to do). I wonder how you propose forcing men to take responsibility. What do men have to do for the 9 months of gestation, not to mention once the baby is born.
I don't doubt your sincerity about wanting both men and women to take responsibility for unwanted pregnancies -- I just wonder what it would look like.
doesn't feel that way right now. That's the hopeful
idea . . . Hope didn't get much applause . . .
Hope! Hope is the underdog!"
-- EV, Live at the Showbox
yes, killing it is one way to deal with it.
killing the guy who cut you off in traffic is one way to deal with him, too.
ebay isn't evil people are
The South is Much Obliged
which is exactly what roe v wade is.
ebay isn't evil people are
The South is Much Obliged
What about woman who are against abortion?
And what Roe v. Wade said was NOT that women could have abortions on demand.
What the Supreme Court DID say in Roe v. Wade was that states had the right to regulate pregnancy throughout a woman's pregnancy. They just couldn't outlaw abortion in the first three months. But after the first three months, states could engage in further regulation to protect the fetus and impose greater restrictions on a woman's right to terminate the pregnancy.
In the aftermath of Roe, states began to vary in the way they regulated pregnancy. So while it's relatively easy to get an abortion in states like California and New York, it's much harder in places like Utah and Missouri and Pennsylvania.
(Personally, I think Roe v. Wade should be required reading in high school. Everyone has fierce opinions about it, but hardly anyone has actually read the damn thing.)
doesn't feel that way right now. That's the hopeful
idea . . . Hope didn't get much applause . . .
Hope! Hope is the underdog!"
-- EV, Live at the Showbox
there are 2 courses here and you refuse to answer to one of them:
abortion is about responsibility. fine. i disagree and see abortion as being a valid and responsible choice. you do not.
abortion is about innocent life. then how can abortion in rape cases still be acceptable? it is still the murder of an innocent life?
you either believe one, the other, or both. if it is about innocent life, then you are inconsistent. if it is about responsibility, then we can debate on that point. but you need to pick your argument. is the fetus an innocent life that should not be murdered by abortion, or is it not? if it is, why is it suddenly ok to murder this innocent life just becos its father was a criminal? if it is not, we can talk about responsibility.
and t=some choose to deal with it by having an abortion. if the fetus is not alive, this is no problem (outside of the fact that it allows women to have sex more freely). if the fetus is alive, again, i ask you to give me a straight answer as to why it is ok to murder this innocent life becos of its father's sins?
i assume you oppose abortion in cases of rape then? otherwise, why is it ok to murder that baby but not others?
no, but it is, as you stated, basically legislation that's binding on the entire population, based on nothing more than your feelings. it compels those who belive it is murder or at least the ending of an innocent life to stand by and allow others to kill without recourse.
just as you state that a fetus is inert, i state that it is not. they are both opinions, right? my opinion is not based on religion, it is based in the science of the act of fertilization. i say that as soon as there's electricity, that's life. you say that as soon as there's breath, that's life. the law (or court ruling) is based on interpretation. opinion. feelings.
ebay isn't evil people are
The South is Much Obliged
If the mother's life is in danger, how can anyone assume to have the moral superiority to tell her that she has to possibly die in order to give birth to a baby that may not survive the birth itself? It's easy for staunch pro-lifers to say that it doesn't matter, but I doubt you'd many (if any) of them who wouldn't abandon their belief the moment they were faced with that situation themselves.
I disagree with people who get multiple abortions as a means of birth control, but I'm realistic enough to know that there is no way to prevent that without completely outlawing abortions, and I don't think that's right.
Let's say, for arguement's sake, that abortion clinics were outlawed, and Roe vs. Wade was overturned. How do those who are pro-life expect things to pan out? Would you personally adopt these babies that were born unwanted? I feel that you should, seeing that it's such a passionate belief of some of you, and you should be held responsible for your beliefs. How would you feel about the women who would die getting an illegal abortion by some voodoo doctor with a coat hanger? How about the women and girls who were raped and forced to have the babies of their rapist? How do you feel about overpopulation? This is an issue, since we now have reached 300,000 billion.
Just some questions...
I think beyond religion there is difficulty in justifying pro-life stances. Just like beyond religion its hard to justify banning homosexuality in a liberal democracy like America. The post I quote from soulsinging demonstrates that if one were being consistent talking about killing a life, then abortion should be illegal full stop. No compromise can be made for rape or any practical reason. If your morals come from religion then it's easier to adopt a strict and external moral code.
In any case I dont think the state should tell people what they can or cannot do. If I were a woman I would not abort. If my daughter had a pregnancy I would persuade her not to abort unless its a rape, on religious grounds. But that's my private choice to make. It's the woman's body and she has to bear the cost of going through with pregnancy and the upbringing of the child, with all the psychological repercussions. I fully understand the pro-choice position.
Read Judith Jarvis Thomson's essay on this. It's one of the best pro choice arguments ever presented.
http://theshahril.blogspot.com
London 20/04/2006
Ha! I just googled this (http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm) and in her first paragraph she talks about acorns and oak trees! I swear I've never read this piece before. Great minds think alike, I guess
This is untrue. There is no difficulty at all. It all comes down to whether or not one views abortion as the killing of a child. Those opposed to abortion, obviously believe that it is, while those unopposed, apparently feel that it isn't. There are plenty of complete atheists who are opposed to abortion for this very reason. You don't have to be religious to know that killing is wrong. You don't have to be religious to view abortion as killing. On the same note, you don't have to be an atheist to believe that abortion does not equate to killing children.
Complicated made simple:
There are plenty of people who, "beyond religion", are opposed to abortion.
precisely. i have strong reservations about abortion and see a very big grey area in the whole alive/not alive distinction. it makes me uncomfortable, but not so much that i can justify outlawing it on my own doubts.
now im gonna quote my own post, cos as soon as i posed that question the pro-lifers ran like frightened cockroaches in the face of their own contradictions (not you).
what, the pro-lifers have no logical response to this?
Not exactly. Even if you justify a pro-life stance by saying that a fetus is a living being, you;re faced with the argument of whether it is your right to make the mother 'suffer' for 9 months, especially if she never intended to have a baby.
Like I said read Thomson's piece. She starts off with the presumption that the fetus IS a human.
Then she gives this analogy. You are kidnapped by the Society of Music Lovers, and you have to lie in bed for 9 months with a tube connecting you to this genius musician who can only live if you make this sacrifice for 9 months. You and only you can do this; no other person can.
If you don't, this musician will die.
Now, should you be forced to sacrifice 9 months of your life to save his?
The situation becomes more complex when YOUR life is also put at risk whilst being forced to save this man's life.
Anyhow, forget that your life is ever at risk. Just think about the moral justification of forcing YOU to save another person's life. If you choose to lie in bed with a tube connecting you to this man to save him then its very generous of you. But does the Society of Music Lovers have any right whatsoever to FORCE you to do something you dont want to do in order to save him?
See these analogies. The SOciety of Music Lovers may feel that the musician is a HUGE asset to the association or even to society, but do they have any right to force their views upon you? I may think that all effort must be done to save the fetus and allow it to see the world and experience life as God intended him/her to. But do I have a right to force other people to do something they dont want to?
Al Qaeda may think America is full of shit and that they are morally corrupt. But do they have the right to come into your country and tell you how to behave? Bush may think (yeah right) that Iraqi society is backward and democracy is the best form of governance, but does he have the right to go in and change the whole system as he sees fit?
Basic right wing/left wing divide I suppose. Individual liberty vs State intervention
Thats why I think beynd religion you'll never be able to conclusively defend your pro life position; pro life meaning making abortion an illegal act. (THIS IS BY NO MEANS A PRO RELIGION POST IM ONLY TRYING TO BE OBJECTIVE)
Remember, this is from the basis that a fetus is a living thing. Nevermind if it isnt!
http://theshahril.blogspot.com
London 20/04/2006