How do you feel about abortion?

[AdenTheThird]

Depends what religion but yes many religions do seem to have a belief that their supernatural pantheon (or single supernatural being) were the ones to create life. Similarly many would claim that life itself is endowed with a special "spark" that man can not recreate, though this is less common than the former (though by no means terribly uncommon). To be a religion, or indeed religious, does not necessitate beliefs in either of those, though to be irreligious probably does.

""most" definitions" refers more to the virus that the same people created in a lab some 15 years ago now http://www.nature.com/news/1998/031110/full/news031110-17.html
Whether a virus is alive is a debatable thing in biology, bacteria however, which the original link covers, is not questioned seriously by anybody about being alive.
If you want to go further back in history then a similar logic was once applied to organic chemistry, http://www.pasteurbrewing.com/organic-chemistry-and-the-idea-of-the-molecule/ with the ideas of a guy named Berzelius being the foundation of a lot of that if you want to go further. A patently absurd and demonstrably false notion today. The stuff linked earlier it still relatively new, and indeed many thought it some time before it would or could happen (if it ever would) before Venter and co said "hold my beer".

At the same time there are religions and interpretations which change, religions with multiple broad and narrow interpretations (possibly to the point that they are separate religions), there are religions which excise sections of various texts, proclaim sections outdated and otherwise come to an opinion that is different than the ones held before.

State your opinion, many others have, however if in said opinion you are going to accuse me (and most of the world, and systems of laws and ethics) of being immoral or draw an equivalence to an immoral act then I am going to take exception. If you provide no reasoning for this, especially after being asked, then your opinions would have to be dismissed which I don't want to have to do. Similarly if you are so staunch in your beliefs I would like to know how you get there -- I have many unanswered questions and things to consider on this subject, the existence of an apparently immovable position then holds some serious allure and is worth exploring.

A choice thought at this junction. A man may state that his wife is the most beautiful in the world. Some have argued that religion should be treated the same way. Others still have argued that the former is a statement of your internal mind where I do not live, if however the religion declares something about the workings of the universe then as I live in the universe I have a stake in it and thus is can be debated.

If you are going to remain in a fixed philosophy on the nature of the universe and morality, one fundamentally different from my own, then barring my suddenly aligning with that (an unlikely event as the broad strokes of your apparent philosophy is not exactly a new concept to me) we are going to have to first take a long time to establish a framework before we can reasonably discuss this issue.

To answer the final question. I am always up for learning something new or gaining new understanding -- it seems to be a thing I greatly enjoy in life. If someone seemingly can offer that then I am going to ask questions.

Okay. I'll stick with my opinion quietly then. Thank you for your support.

 

[pustal]

In the states a Father cannot avoid being responsible for his kids. There’s child support and alimony. If he doesn’t support his kids he can go to jail.

And a women can avoid legal, moral and financial responsibility of the kids and opt out of motherhood after the baby is born. She doesn’t have to be forced to take care of the kid if she doesn’t want to.

If a women has a kid but doesn’t want it she can opt out and give the baby up for adoption.

A women can also give up a baby to the state under Safe Haven laws, remain legally anonymous and won’t be charged with abandonment.

Depending on state kids can be 78 hrs to 18 yrs old. If the man tries to give up the baby under Safe Haven laws without the mother’s consent he can be arrested for kidnapping and is likely to be forced to pay child support.


People have no problem killing “living” bugs, bacteria (with hand sanitizers), eating plants, killing animals for food, and killing pests like rodents. Life is not a concern for us unless it’s human life, except for a few peta. And even peta doesn’t mind killing bacteria and germs.

A plant is not conscience like humans because it doesn’t have neurons. Bacteria are not conscience either.

The whole abortion debate surrounds religion, when does a fetus starts to have conscience, is it wrong to abort something that has a conscience, and is it ok for the baby to be born if the biological parents don’t want to be parents.

People don’t really care about the life of a snail, ant, or bacteria. And most doesn’t even care about the life of conscience creatures like cows or pigs. They kill them all time. Most peoples only concern is humans.

A father can have sex with the mother and never been seen again, without a trace. A mother cannot do the same thing, for starters. A father can be father without anyone knowing who's the father (even himself), a mother cannot do that for the next 9 months.

And again, adoption is no way a same weighted option as an abortion. A mother has to go to all the pregnancy, risk all the complications, and be subjected to a trauma much bigger than one left by an abortion.

On your second part, again, for you to have a conscience, you need a brain, and a brain is only formed after the 12th week. A woman can only safelly abort until he 12th week, coincidentally. This is a non-issue.

 

[bitjacker]

To have a conscience, you need to have a soul.

 

[Soilboi]

Abortion is not something that should ever be looked at lightly, it is not a proud moment, but when it happens in any circumstance it is necessary.
I was a staunchly against abortion growing up, but, after much research and talking with women in person about why they have had abortions I can tell you that each one of those women had no other choice. In our society even if you have the kid and plan to adopt it out you are strapping yourself with debt that will keep you a member of the lowest dregs of society for the rest of your life. If you keep the child you then keep them in the same cycle. The only way to break out of this cycle is to control your fertility, which has been done throughout history with abortient herbs. Wet nurses used to kill newborns if they thought a family had too many children to feed. As an ethnobotanist I could walk down the street and tell you half a dozen plants to make a tea with that would cause a miscarriage. The problem with this is there is no way of knowing what other damage these herbs will do to you, so safer options are needed.
The only people you hurt are those are the poor and already ashamed when you deny them access to a safe medical procedure. Abortions will and have happened, please give people dignity in their darkest moments.

 

[AngryCinnabon]

I don't like it but people have reasons... i'd support it in two cases however

Rape.

And if birth is going to kill you.

 

[granville]

I'm opposed to abortion, exceptions being made for rape or in cases where there's a serious health issue present making the birthing dangerous.

I should also note that i'm an atheist, my perception is not being driven by religious dogma. And i'm otherwise generally "left" leaning. I also support socialized free health care, including birth control.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

I'm opposed to abortion, exceptions being made for rape or in cases where there's a serious health issue present making the birthing dangerous.

I should also note that i'm an atheist, my perception is not being driven by religious dogma. And i'm otherwise generally "left" leaning. I also support socialized free health care, including birth control.

Legitimate question, but if you can make an exception for rape or health reasons, why not just allow it in any case that a woman deems necessary?

Or, on the flip side, if you have such a moral objection to it, why even make the exceptions in the first place?

 

[DeadlyFoez]

I don't like it but people have reasons... i'd support it in two cases however

Rape.

And if birth is going to kill you.

I'm opposed to abortion, exceptions being made for rape or in cases where there's a serious health issue present making the birthing dangerous.

I used to have these 2 same viewpoints until I took an ethics class and these situations came up. After stating my stance when it comes to a woman whom is raped, my professor challenged me by asking "Does one injustice deem it alright to do another?", and it got me thinking. He is right. If the woman can't handle riasing a child that was born due to a rape then she should give the child up. Killing the child will not take the rape away. And by aborting the child she may suffer even more now knowing that she killed an innocent child.

Even if my wife was pregnant and there was a good likelihood that going through with the birth could kill her, I would still want her to do it. I see no reason why an innocent child should die. If that is the cards that were handed to me then it must be fate and who am I to say that a child should not have a chance at life. I would have far too much guilt.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

I used to have these 2 same viewpoints until I took an ethics class and these situations came up. After stating my stance when it comes to a woman whom is raped, my professor challenged me by asking "Does one injustice deem it alright to do another?", and it got me thinking. He is right. If the woman can't handle riasing a child that was born due to a rape then she should give the child up. Killing the child will not take the rape away. And by aborting the child she may suffer even more now knowing that she killed an innocent child.

Even if my wife was pregnant and there was a good likelihood that going through with the birth could kill her, I would still want her to do it. I see no reason why an innocent child should die. If that is the cards that were handed to me then it must be fate and who am I to say that a child should not have a chance at life. I would have far too much guilt.

I'd bring up the argument of how the fetus isn't even sentient until well into the second trimester, but I'd be repeating myself and something tells me you really won't care. However, I will say that I think your ethics professor definitely has it backwards, especially since it seems like he's using the assumption that abortion is morally wrong as fact (which, clearly that is not the case, from a universal standpoint. It's a very grey issue to some people, and even morally neutral to others). Instead of thinking of "does one wrong justify another wrong", you need to think of "does one wrong disqualify a woman from having a optional, but safe, operation, that effectively is a preventative to childbirth rather than killing a living child?"

Or, if you even want to use the same argument as he, "does one wrong (rape) justify another wrong (telling a woman what to do with her own body before a fetus is developed to the point of a "living" classification)?

 

[_Chaz_]

I'm a big fan of abortion. I wish it was more popular.

 

[DeadlyFoez]

I'd bring up the argument of how the fetus isn't even sentient until well into the second trimester, but I'd be repeating myself and something tells me you really won't care. However, I will say that I think your ethics professor definitely has it backwards, especially since it seems like he's using the assumption that abortion is morally wrong as fact (which, clearly that is not the case, from a universal standpoint. It's a very grey issue to some people, and even morally neutral to others). Instead of thinking of "does one wrong justify another wrong", you need to think of "does one wrong disqualify a woman from having a optional, but safe, operation, that effectively is a preventative to childbirth rather than killing a living child?"

Or, if you even want to use the same argument as he, "does one wrong (rape) justify another wrong (telling a woman what to do with her own body before a fetus is developed to the point of a "living" classification)?

I know exactly what you are saying, but your viewpoint is different than mine. I feel abortion is wrong. I am entitled to my opinion as well as you are. Lets just hope that neither one of us gets put in a position of a loved one that gets pregnant from a rape.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

Lets just hope that neither one of us gets put in a position of a loved one that gets pregnant from a rape.

I'd hope not under ANY circumstances

 

[AngryCinnabon]

I know exactly what you are saying, but your viewpoint is different than mine. I feel abortion is wrong. I am entitled to my opinion as well as you are. Lets just hope that neither one of us gets put in a position of a loved one that gets pregnant from a rape.

I truly do wish that won't happen.

 

[fernas]

This is a "moral" discussion, not a rational one. So, there will never be a final statement or a final solution.

When you have a moral discussion each one of us use our personal values (learned by believes, breeding, religion, historical context, etc.), and is very difficult to move from our personal values to a new ones. So, there will never be a final resolution to this problem.

My personal thought: I'm against abortion because I love having kids. I have a daughter and I love her very much. But I believe, since this is a moral discussion, that the governments don't have to impose their decision. So, I believe that every woman must have the freedom to choose and to deal with the consequences of their decision. And also, everyone has the right to express their point of view, by protests, education programs, etc.

 

[GreatCrippler]

18 Pages and counting. Amazing how many teenagers have an opinion on this. >.> If you are a man. You don't get a say. You can't have an abortion. If you're a woman. Your body, your choice. It is as simple as that.

 

[FAST6191]

If teenagers are disproportionally negatively affected by pregnancy then surely they would be in a prime position to have an opinion. Equally what about being a teenager would render their opinions less useful?

"If you are a man. You don't get a say. You can't have an abortion."
As far as legal things go then sure (though even then if you are in the position of medical decision maker for someone else...), at least pending cheap and easy fetal transplants (presumably also an artificial womb). Morally I can well see it being a dick move to not involve he what provided the sperm in many cases (personally I would be delighted if a significant other got pregnant, got it aborted just like going to get a haircut or something; keeper material that is. At the same time I would view it as perfectly reasonable grounds for ending a relationship for someone else).
As far as a general discussion on the ethics of the concept. No reason not to be involved really, unless you truly are indifferent I guess.

I am entitled to my opinion as well as you are.

That always feels like a cop out in discussions like this. We can surely try to establish some common ground as far as ethical principles (for instance for these purposes I would not care if we are both about preventing suffering but yours comes from a line in an ancient book and mine from some kind of biological drive from being a social ape and lot more consideration) and then thrash out some results of that.

 

[DeadlyFoez]

That always feels like a cop out in discussions like this. We can surely try to establish some common ground as far as ethical principles (for instance for these purposes I would not care if we are both about preventing suffering but yours comes from a line in an ancient book and mine from some kind of biological drive from being a social ape and lot more consideration) and then thrash out some results of that.

Really? Do you know who you are talking to? I am the complete opposite of a religious person. None of my principles are in any way shape or form influenced by religion. My principles are based off of logic and the heart that I have grown to have since being a father.

The fact is, no one will ever all agree on anything... ever. So there is no common ground that can be met at. I have already debated this topic numerous times and it would take quite a lot for me to budge from my position at this point as I have already previously refined my stance and only once had a small change of view.

 

[FAST6191]

It was a hypothetical and pretty clearly phrased as such. I don't know if you are attempting to take offence or something but I stand by what I wrote there.

If nobody is going to agree on anything then what is the point? That is not a great position to take as clearly we can get many places.

Logic then. Mind running me through yours? I would hold my position is born of logic and a sense of empathy and we would appear to still have radically different approaches, or at least end results.

As a curio though. You say "since becoming a father". It is noted that child having is an expensive hobby whether you are talking about calories from hunting, farming in a field or working your arse off in the modern world. It is then a biological imperative that sees both high sex drive and fondness/protectiveness for children, one that increases considerably if you are lumped with those of your own (or possibly if you lack them at developmental stages). Several other imperatives are no longer as relevant in the modern world, for instance the one that says "fat, sugar and salt are good stuff, find them where you can", so might your fatherhood be something to... overcome?

 

[DeadlyFoez]

It was a hypothetical and pretty clearly phrased as such. I don't know if you are attempting to take offence or something but I stand by what I wrote there.

If nobody is going to agree on anything then what is the point? That is not a great position to take as clearly we can get many places.

Logic then. Mind running me through yours? I would hold my position is born of logic and a sense of empathy and we would appear to still have radically different approaches, or at least end results.

As a curio though. You say "since becoming a father". It is noted that child having is an expensive hobby whether you are talking about calories from hunting, farming in a field or working your arse off in the modern world. It is then a biological imperative that sees both high sex drive and fondness/protectiveness for children, one that increases considerably if you are lumped with those of your own (or possibly if you lack them at developmental stages). Several other imperatives are no longer as relevant in the modern world, for instance the one that says "fat, sugar and salt are good stuff, find them where you can", so might your fatherhood be something to... overcome?

Do you really think that just because my conclusion is based upon logic that my conclusion has to be the same as yours??? All things decided upon logic must be the same? Sorry man, my thinking is obviously far different than yours. I see things in a much different perspective. And before you make a joke, my perspective is not from a view up my ass.

There is absolutely no reasoning with you.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

Do you really think that just because my conclusion is based upon logic that my conclusion has to be the same as yours??? All things decided upon logic must be the same? Sorry man, my thinking is obviously far different than yours. I see things in a much different perspective. And before you make a joke, my perspective is not from a view up my ass.

There is absolutely no reasoning with you.

He said that his decision was born out of what he sees logical, he said nothing of yours other than that he wanted to hear your thought process behind it. Saying that his conclusion was reached through logic doesn't mean that yours wasn't reached the same way, but with different supporting evidence