How is abortion morally ethical.....

cornnifer wrote:

Bollocks. None of this metaphorical, anecdotal stuff changes anything. You still have to deal with the fact that A LOT of vehemently non-religious folks are adamantly opposed to abortion. Obviously "beyond religion".

Allright allright if you wanna bollocks that argument without actually processing it with an open mind then go ahead. I never said atheists can never be pro life. Im saying its hard to justify it thats all.

Try putting those analogies to an atheist pro-lifer, or any pro-lifer for that matter. I bet most will find it hard to defend their position.

shahril wrote:

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!

the premise of the analogy is wrong from the outset. the woman chose to engage in the act that got her pregnant. if you equate outlawing abortion to forcing her to save the life of another...so be it. being kidnapped and forced to save the life of another is not the same thing...

and religion has nothing to do with why i oppose abortion. i am not a practicing anything. i believe, scientifically speaking, that once the sperm and egg meet and there's electricity and cells begin to divide, that's life set on its course. nothing religious about it...

dangerboy wrote:

the premise of the analogy is wrong from the outset. the woman chose to engage in the act that got her pregnant. if you equate outlawing abortion to forcing her to save the life of another...so be it. being kidnapped and forced to save the life of another is not the same thing...

and religion has nothing to do with why i oppose abortion. i am not a practicing anything. i believe, scientifically speaking, that once the sperm and egg meet and there's electricity and cells begin to divide, that's life set on its course. nothing religious about it...

You beat me to it, but, at least i have some confirmation.

dangerboy wrote:

sure you are. because it allows for wanton destruction of innocent life. which in your viewpoint is just fine....

from my viewpoint, that's like saying that you don't believe in robbing banks but it's ok if i do it if i believe there's nothing wrong with it.

i believe we argue passionately about this topic because we want the other side to understand fully what we're saying, and that if they did, they would believe as we do.

i'm willing to accept all viewpoints, too, as long as the one that's law is mine

I am now fully for abortion and wish that the guy in this article had a mother who was too!!!!!!!! Fking sick!
http://www.mlive.com/news/bctimes/index.ssf?/base/news-8/116170304311310.xml&coll=4

It' always the same problem with "anti-choice"

They somehow feel they have to enforce their belief upon others, a bit like anti-smoke people.

I don't see where the problem is. Let people who feel they have to use abortion do it. Let people who want to smoke smoke.

To anti-choice people, I'd just say this.

A woman should be able to be free to do what she wants with her body. If two are having a baby, they shgould be the only one to be able to choose if it's the right time for everyone, including the future kid.

Anything that come on top of this is useless thinking.

dangerboy wrote:

interesting. hadn't thought of it in exactly those terms before.

i think the difference would be in the choice contained in the actions that lead to the pregnancy. a woman who is impregnated during rape did not choose to engage in said activity, and not allowing her to abort in that case would in fact be controlling her reproductive freedom. it's forcing her to become pregnant in the first place, and then forcing her to suffer the consequences of someone else's actions, not her own.

becoming pregnant during consentual sex, even if pregnancy is not intended and birth control measures are employed, is part of the risk of engaging in the behavior. the risk is a known factor going in. birth control only reduces the risk, not eliminates it. this is where i think we're dealing with a personal responsiblity issue. there's a risk something unintended might happen. you don't intend to get herpes, but you might. and if you do? you'll have to deal with it. you can't just take a pill or stop by the doctor's office and have yourself absolved of the consequences of your actions. you can take measures to lessen the risk that you'll pass it on, but there's still a risk that you will. for example, you owe it to anyone else that you are exposing to this risk the right for them to decide whether or not they want that exposure by telling them what the risks are and letting them decide for themselves. if they know the risks, and still get herpes from you....that's something they've got to live with, right? they can't say "oh, wait. i got herpes. it's your fault, not mine, even though i accepted the risks." having an abortion after knowing the risks and engaging in the activity anyway is akin to blaming the fetus...

imho, of course.

But this doesn't answer the question. A child conceived by rape is still "human life." The conditions surrounding conception doesn't change that, does it?

dangerboy wrote:

the premise of the analogy is wrong from the outset. the woman chose to engage in the act that got her pregnant. if you equate outlawing abortion to forcing her to save the life of another...so be it. being kidnapped and forced to save the life of another is not the same thing...

and religion has nothing to do with why i oppose abortion. i am not a practicing anything. i believe, scientifically speaking, that once the sperm and egg meet and there's electricity and cells begin to divide, that's life set on its course. nothing religious about it...

so u believe, that the only difference from Thomson's analogy is that the woman CHOSE to have sex and if she gets pregnant because of that then she has no choice but to 'save' that life by staying the course? Allright fair enough.

So what happens if it was rape?

What happens if when she conceived the fetus, she had a good life ahead of her, but 2 months into her pregnancy she discovers that she has a late stage cancer and only has 2 more years to live. She wishes to spend every minute of that life alone with her family without having the burden of the fetus. Was it still her 'choice' to get pregnant? Yes it was, but was it an informed choice?

What happens if she discovers 2 months into her pregancy that having the baby would likely shorten her life, and she is not willing to make that sacrifice. Was it an informed choice to have the baby?

What if, she had insisted that her partner used a condom, but it tore during sex and she has a baby now. It wasnt rape, but it certainly wasnt her choice to have the baby. What do u do with this woman?

Like soulsinging outlined, u cant have it both ways. If you argue from the premise of choice over chance, then please answer these scenarios I have put before u.

You see, its easy for u to say the woman had sex, she has to pay for it now. In a secularised society isnt that borderline sexist?

And u argue that scientifically when a sperm and an egg combine there is life, and thats not religious. I agree completely. But my argument is EVEN if one day science can conclusively prove that a fetus is living being with feelings, emotions, and whatnot, the question still stands unanswered. DOES THE STATE HAVE THE RIGHT TO INTERVENE IN A WOMAN'S CHOICE OF HER OWN BODY?

Religion says yes. Secularism and individual liberty says no. Thats my point.

I repeat, so u guys dont come out attacking me: even if there was a consensus that a fetus is a living being with FULL mental capacities, able to feel like u and i feel now, DOES THE STATE HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE THE CHOICE FOR THE MOTHER? thats the question.
and come on...do u actually think in your scientific mind that a fetus is capable of emotions comparable to what a fully grown person has?

cornnifer wrote:

In 99.9999999 percent of instances, no one is kidnapped, forcibly impregnated and forced to lie in bed for nine months as in the absurdist musician analogy. The analogy immediately falls apart to the truly unbiased observer. its crap.

sigh. firstly, i wasnt accusing u for no reason. You simply shot down my argument without backing yourself up. So it was a fair statement on my part, was it not?

secondly, have u ever actually read any social science books/journals? Of course almost nobody will get kidnapped and get forced to lie on a bed. But the PRINCIPLE of what the Society of Music Lovers did, is very similar to what a State will be doing if it outlaws abortion. It is FORCING a woman, the HOST of the child, to do something AGAINST her will in the name of saving another life, if we agree it is a life.

dangerboy wrote:

i'm not religious. period. i may believe in some higher being, or at least something bigger than me, but i haven't been to church in decades. i don't subscribe to any particular religion. i think most religion is fukt, personally.

i guess it's kinda hard to explain why i think humans are above plants or lesser evolved animals. i'd have to say i guess it's because we are the life forms that have evolved into the life forms that have the most control over the environment in which we all live, the cognitive reasoning and communication and resourcefulness and industry needed to survive when other forms cannot.

A fetus possesses none of those qualities.

shahril wrote:

so u believe, that the only difference from Thomson's analogy is that the woman CHOSE to have sex and if she gets pregnant because of that then she has no choice but to 'save' that life by staying the course? Allright fair enough.

So what happens if it was rape?

What happens if when she conceived the fetus, she had a good life ahead of her, but 2 months into her pregnancy she discovers that she has a late stage cancer and only has 2 more years to live. She wishes to spend every minute of that life alone with her family without having the burden of the fetus. Was it still her 'choice' to get pregnant? Yes it was, but was it an informed choice?

What happens if she discovers 2 months into her pregancy that having the baby would likely shorten her life, and she is not willing to make that sacrifice. Was it an informed choice to have the baby?

What if, she had insisted that her partner used a condom, but it tore during sex and she has a baby now. It wasnt rape, but it certainly wasnt her choice to have the baby. What do u do with this woman?

Like soulsinging outlined, u cant have it both ways. If you argue from the premise of choice over chance, then please answer these scenarios I have put before u.

You see, its easy for u to say the woman had sex, she has to pay for it now. In a secularised society isnt that borderline sexist?

And u argue that scientifically when a sperm and an egg combine there is life, and thats not religious. I agree completely. But my argument is EVEN if one day science can conclusively prove that a fetus is living being with feelings, emotions, and whatnot, the question still stands unanswered. DOES THE STATE HAVE THE RIGHT TO INTERVENE IN A WOMAN'S CHOICE OF HER OWN BODY?

Religion says yes. Secularism and individual liberty says no. Thats my point.

I repeat, so u guys dont come out attacking me: even if there was a consensus that a fetus is a living being with FULL mental capacities, able to feel like u and i feel now, DOES THE STATE HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE THE CHOICE FOR THE MOTHER? thats the question.
and come on...do u actually think in your scientific mind that a fetus is capable of emotions comparable to what a fully grown person has?

i'm trying to answer some of this in other responses.


condom fails: accepted risk. no one thinks condoms are foolproof.

i didn't say if a woman has sex she has to "pay for it now". it's not about punishment, it's about accepting the consequences of your actions. pregnancy is a possible result of sexual activity. so is contrcting an std. you can lessen the chances, but never fully remove them.



you said:

"And u argue that scientifically when a sperm and an egg combine there is life, and thats not religious. I agree completely. But my argument is EVEN if one day science can conclusively prove that a fetus is living being with feelings, emotions, and whatnot, the question still stands unanswered. DOES THE STATE HAVE THE RIGHT TO INTERVENE IN A WOMAN'S CHOICE OF HER OWN BODY?"


i respond to that by saying that the fetus is not a woman's body. it is another being. you got to this thread late....some of this has already been covered here.

and i ask you this: if a woman chooses to engage in risky behavior, does she have a right to interfere with the fetus' choice if its own body? the fetus didn't choose to be inside of a woman who has little regard for its life. the fetus didn't choose to be inside a woman who chooses not to accept the responsiblities that come along with her choices in life.

you said:

"What happens if when she conceived the fetus, she had a good life ahead of her, but 2 months into her pregnancy she discovers that she has a late stage cancer and only has 2 more years to live. She wishes to spend every minute of that life alone with her family without having the burden of the fetus. Was it still her 'choice' to get pregnant? Yes it was, but was it an informed choice?"


in this scenario, getting an abortion would be for selfish reasons. nobody knows how much time they have left. a co-worker of mine was recently diagnosed with breast cancer only 4 months after having a baby. should she kill it now so she doesn't have to be burdened by it? or becuase she may not be around to raise it?

you said:

"What happens if she discovers 2 months into her pregancy that having the baby would likely shorten her life, and she is not willing to make that sacrifice. Was it an informed choice to have the baby?'

again, getting an abortion in this scenario would be for selfish reasons. dying during childbirth is a risk of pregnancy. pregnancy is a risk of having sex. accepting the risks of having sex includes accepting any results, and other issues that arise from those results.


you said:

"I repeat, so u guys dont come out attacking me: even if there was a consensus that a fetus is a living being with FULL mental capacities, able to feel like u and i feel now, DOES THE STATE HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE THE CHOICE FOR THE MOTHER? thats the question.
and come on...do u actually think in your scientific mind that a fetus is capable of emotions comparable to what a fully grown person has?"

and i repeat so you don't come out attacking me: does the mother have the right to make the choice for the fetus? why does a woman have the right to choose to end this particular life when she would not be granted the right to end the lives of others? especially when it was her actions that led to this other life being created in the first place?



i'll admit, as i said in another post, i hadn't thought of the rape angle in quite the terms presented. up until now, i would have said that i support abortions in some very few cases, including rape. maybe i should be against it even in that case, too? congratulations! you actually influenced my opinion! not in the direction you intended, though, eh?

so now you're going to flame me for forcing rape victims to have rape babies, right?

hippiemom wrote:

A fetus possesses none of those qualities.

it most likely will if you don't kill it