The abortion paradox

[Neo-Scholastic]

Clearly, people have strong emotional responses to the morality of abortion. I have tried not to introduce my own heartache and personal struggles into the debate. When each person tries to assert their moral authority by virtue of their unique experience it becomes an unenlightening game in one-ups-manship. That said, I do appreciate hearing these stories. They give me a deeper understanding of the moral complexity of the abortion debate and remind me to keep my statements as rational as possible. I apologize for using provocative and emotionally charged terms. Even still, my position remains firm against willfully and casually terminating unborn human life.

It is common to characterize the unborn as globs of cells, etc. Biologically all human beings at every stage of development are just globs of cells. I can accept that viability is relevant and the perilous position of the unborn has bearing on weighting the rights of the unborn against those of the living. Failure to implant occurs naturally and often. The unborn are dependant on involuntarily nourishment from the mother. Infants and young children are dependent on the active care of others until they are able to care for themselves. But that fragility and dependence does not erase anyone’s humanity. No does the lack of ability to care for those who depend upon us make them less deserving of life.

Laws and societal pressures tell everyone what they can and cannot do with their own bodies, male and female. In some cases, each of us is obligated, to greater or lesser extent, to act upon other people’s bodies without their consent, helping when they are incapacitated by injury or forcefully when they threaten others by their actions. The abortion debate is no different.

Reproductive freedom is vitally important to a free society. The question is not whether we should have that freedom or not. The question is at what points we can rightfully exercise that freedom. I believe that once a person has conceived they have already made an irrevocable choice to have a child.

At the same time I acknowledge that some people had that choice forced upon them, a fact that must be taken into consideration. Likewise, caring a child to term can be medically problematic and give rise to other moral dilemmas. Weighing the life of the mother versus that of the child during triage is the classic streetcar problem and there are good arguments on both sides. Special cases, however, do not detract from the wrongness of abortion in general.

In short, I believe that pro-choice advocates hold the position that the unborn are not really human and that that stance has repercussions far beyond the abortion debate.

[festive1]

In short, I believe that pro-choice advocates hold the position that the unborn are not really human and that that stance has repercussions far beyond the abortion debate.

In short, I believe anti-abortion advocates hold the position that women are not really human and should be forced to carry any and all conceptions to term. The fact that women are the carriers of this potential life means that men should have no say in what they choose to do with that potential life. Any anti-abortion argument is an imposition of another's personal beliefs and morality on women who may not hold such beliefs or moral standards themselves.

[genkaus]

It is common to characterize the unborn as globs of cells, etc. Biologically all human beings at every stage of development are just globs of cells.

But humans do have attributes other than biological ones. Unborn babies don't. They cannot be classified as anything other than globs of cells.

I can accept that viability is relevant and the perilous position of the unborn has bearing on weighting the rights of the unborn against those of the living. Failure to implant occurs naturally and often. The unborn are dependant on involuntarily nourishment from the mother. Infants and young children are dependent on the active care of others until they are able to care for themselves. But that fragility and dependence does not erase anyone’s humanity. No does the lack of ability to care for those who depend upon us make them less deserving of life.

Quite a few assumptions here. You are assuming it has humanity to begin with. You are also assuming that whether someone deserves to live can be determined and quantified.

Laws and societal pressures tell everyone what they can and cannot do with their own bodies, male and female. In some cases, each of us is obligated, to greater or lesser extent, to act upon other people’s bodies without their consent, helping when they are incapacitated by injury or forcefully when they threaten others by their actions. The abortion debate is no different.

Actually, no, "each" of us is not obligated to act upon others' body without their consent, unless they have explicitly assumed such an obligation. So if someone is injured or dying, you are not obligated to help them unless you are a doctor or a paramedic and if someone is threatening someone else, you are not obligated to interfere unless you are a cop.

Reproductive freedom is vitally important to a free society. The question is not whether we should have that freedom or not. The question is at what points we can rightfully exercise that freedom. I believe that once a person has conceived they have already made an irrevocable choice to have a child.

Since it can be so easily revoked, clearly it's not irrevocable. Your beliefs do not line up with reality. In fact, until they actually have had the child, the choice is still up for revocation.

At the same time I acknowledge that some people had that choice forced upon them, a fact that must be taken into consideration. Likewise, caring a child to term can be medically problematic and give rise to other moral dilemmas. Weighing the life of the mother versus that of the child during triage is the classic streetcar problem and there are good arguments on both sides. Special cases, however, do not detract from the wrongness of abortion in general.

I agree. Special cases would not detract from wrongness of abortion - if abortion was in fact wrong.

In short, I believe that pro-choice advocates hold the position that the unborn are not really human and that that stance has repercussions far beyond the abortion debate.

Such as ....?

[LastPoet]

here comes the slippery slope!

[Minimalist]

God is letting free will and sin run its course. In 2 Kings 17:5 this prophecy is fulfilled by the Assyrians. The Samarians' wicked deeds turned out to have consequences, like most sin. And God predicted it would be so.

Not even close to addressing the question. Your god seems to hate fetuses. Why is that? Even a third-rate apologist like you should be able to do better.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

here comes the slippery slope!

*raises arms* weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

[Minimalist]

God says that life is in the blood and in so many ways,

Oh, G-C...at this point I must insist once again that you provide actual evidence that your imaginary sky-daddy exists to say anything.

You always want to skip step #1.

Why is that? Don't you have any?

[Cyberman]

I'm as baffled as your good self, Min. We're always told the evidence is out there, somewhere, in some vague undefined direction. It would make a nice change to see some of it, wouldn't it?

[Ciel_Rouge]

In Bibical Christianity, a monogamous, loving, committed, heterosexual marriage, sanctified by God, is less likely to end in infidelity, extra-marital promiscuity, family breakdown, unwanted babies, single-mothers, custody battles, family law litigation, unhappy childhoods, gender identity confusion, and the long term social pathologies which tax payers have to provide for years later after the initial damage is done.

The problem with this (or rather one of many problems) is that it simply isn't true. http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

The problem with this is that I didn't say that hock: It was actually someone replying to my post, I am completely against the ideas mentioned like forced monogamy etc.

Just to clear things up: I think that there is a difference between an acorn and a fetus with head, eyes, legs etc. I heard that in ancient times women were able to terminate an unwanted pregnancy with some kind of herbs, very early on. The problem is that contemporary medicine is not able or willing to terminate when it is not much more than an acorn and they just wait until the fetus develops which is really beyond me.

Anyway, what I was trying to imply is that we should focus on preventing unwanted pregnancies first so maybe there will simply be nothing to abort in first place.

As for explaining the paradox of banning condoms on one side and banning abortion on the other, I like the explanation of producing more Christians. This way you can waste more lives on wars, have more taxpayers and people will be less defiant when crammed into their flats with their whole extended families instead of living independent lives.

I am not a female nor virgin male Still, I do not consider condoms uncomfortable. I find the isolation from unwanted "gifts" like hepatitis etc. highly agreeable. I think most people who despise condoms simply had problems with maintaining erection while putting one on. It is a purely psychological thing. Pills tend to kill women's libido so I highly prefer gloved love to making love to someone who is practically a pharmacologically neutered female

[CapnAwesome]

The problem with this (or rather one of many problems) is that it simply isn't true. http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

The problem with this is that I didn't say that hock: It was actually someone replying to my post, I am completely against the ideas mentioned like forced monogamy etc.

Just to clear things up: I think that there is a difference between an acorn and a fetus with head, eyes, legs etc. I heard that in ancient times women were able to terminate an unwanted pregnancy with some kind of herbs, very early on. The problem is that contemporary medicine is not able or willing to terminate when it is not much more than an acorn and they just wait until the fetus develops which is really beyond me.

Anyway, what I was trying to imply is that we should focus on preventing unwanted pregnancies first so maybe there will simply be nothing to abort in first place.

As for explaining the paradox of banning condoms on one side and banning abortion on the other, I like the explanation of producing more Christians. This way you can waste more lives on wars, have more taxpayers and people will be less defiant when crammed into their flats with their whole extended families instead of living independent lives.

I am not a female nor virgin male Still, I do not consider condoms uncomfortable. I find the isolation from unwanted "gifts" like hepatitis etc. highly agreeable. I think most people who despise condoms simply had problems with maintaining erection while putting one on. It is a purely psychological thing. Pills tend to kill women's libido so I highly prefer gloved love to making love to someone who is practically a pharmacologically neutered female

Yeah, there is actually no real reason for abortion to exist. There are sooo many options for birth control it baffles me how anyone becomes pregnant on accident. Even though I'm pro-choice on the basis that cells don't have rights, I feel very little sympathy for those who become pregnant 'on accident'

I did however quote you on accident, still getting used to how the forums work.