Abortion thread

[totalia]

I think that abortion is one of those things that (just like gay marriage) should not be addressed from a religious point of view. What is good for the religion may not be good for general society at large and vice versa.

That being said, yes there are women who have abortions just because they don't want the baby. Of course there are. But what right do you have to make that decision for them?

 

[MrsKreamer]

I think that abortion is one of those things that (just like gay marriage) should not be addressed from a religious point of view. What is good for the religion may not be good for general society at large and vice versa.

That being said, yes there are women who have abortions just because they don't want the baby. Of course there are. But what right do you have to make that decision for them?

Not all pro-lifers are looking at it with religion. I am not religious, and I still think abortion is wrong. I also know very religious people who support gay marriage.


FYI-Did any of you know that the woman from Roe v Wade is pro-life now?

 

[totalia]

Immelman, your honesty is refreshing. I know a few women who have had abortions--all of them were young when it happened and were due to mistakes. I'm sure they all deeply regret getting pregnant, but I don't know any that regret the choice they made. They all went on to get married and have families later on. They are all good people from good families. (I probably know so many, because people feel comfortable confiding in me. I've been vocally pro choice since I was teen. My mom has also always been pro choice.)

In the two years+ that I've been getting involved in these debates on the DIS, I've been tempted to start a poll to see how many people on the DIS have actually had abortions or have had fathered pregnancies that have resulted in abortions. The results might be surprising. But I don't know how such a poll would be received.

One of my coworkers had an abortion. Why did she do it? Because the man she was with was an abusive drug addict and she was scared that he would hurt either of them. She didn't want the chance that he would chase them down so she never even told him. When she finally did leave, it was with no strings attached. Its sad that a woman would have to do such a thing but the reality is that drug addicts have rights to their children (as I well know because of whats going on with my sister) and that they could very well harm the children and the mothers.

So yes, it was a form of birth control. But it was a form that benefitted all of them and prevented further harm. I can't imagine how bad it would have been if she had actually had the baby. She even had to move to another city to try to escape the psycho.

 

[WDWHound]

I think that abortion is one of those things that (just like gay marriage) should not be addressed from a religious point of view. What is good for the religion may not be good for general society at large and vice versa.

Actually, the Bible has zip to say on the topic. The question of whether or not abortion is wrong is not a religious issue and those against it do not need to take a religious stand to be so. Is a debate over whether or not abortion is murder. Murder is already against the law, so the question then becomes when does a feetus become a person with the rights of a person. Is is possible that a fetus is still as person evwen though it is inside its mother? Neither the Bible nor science provides clear answers for this and I feel the law standard of being able to survive without the mother before recieving the right to be protected under the law to be completely arbitrary.

 

[totalia]

Just thought i'd give some more food for thought.....As far as having abortions for when the child has defects....

Sorry, I misread your post....

 

[totalia]

In all fields--not just prenatal/neonatal..medicine has advanced to allow things to happen that would have once been fatal.

In theory--getting medical care at any stage in life is interfering with God's Will as we didn't always have that possibility.

*nods agreement*

 

[totalia]

Actually, the Bible has zip to say on the topic. The question of whether or not abortion is wrong is not a religious issue and those against it do not need to take a religious stand to be so. Is a debate over whether or not abortion is murder. Murder is already against the law, so the question then becomes when does a feetus become a person with the rights of a person. Is is possible that a fetus is still as person evwen though it is inside its mother? Neither the Bible nor science provides clear answers for this and I feel the law standard of being able to survive without the mother before recieving the right to be protected under the law to be completely arbitrary.

I think we have already established that I don't believe abortion is murder until the baby can live on its own outside the mother. Until such time, it is nothing more than a parasite. Just because its human doesn't mean otherwise.

 

[swilphil]

What about the morning-after pill? My understanding is that the pill prevents the sperm from fertilizing the egg. In that case, it is preventing conception, so it wouldn't be murder by those that think life begins at conception. Should it be available over the counter?

 

[zagafi]

Whoah, I never said that it was VIABLE at 6 weeks, just that it is not a 'blob' of undifferentiated cells. It's not an embryo until it implants, that is when structures etc start to develop.

Wrong. I had embryos growing in a petri dish. It's not a "pregnancy" until implantation.

 

[totalia]

I just think of the morning after pill as a hard immediate version of the birth control pill.

I don't think it should be available over the counter any more than the BCP should be. Its still a drug and it could seriously harm the body.

 

[WDWHound]

What about the morning-after pill? My understanding is that the pill prevents the sperm from fertilizing the egg. In that case, it is preventing conception, so it wouldn't be murder by those that think life begins at conception. Should it be available over the counter?

The whole point is that we don't know when life begins, nor have we really come to a clear defintion of what life is. Thats what makes the issue so difficult.

 

[krystyana]

Totalia...I believe you misread my post.....I am definately pro-choice....and respect the rights of all to make their own decisions.

 

[WDWHound]

I think we have already established that I don't believe abortion is murder until the baby can live on its own outside the mother. Until such time, it is nothing more than a parasite. Just because its human doesn't mean otherwise.

Why would something have less rights simply because it is attached to you? Also, what about a baby that could syurvie outside the womb in intesive care?

Human life is human life. Our law says its wrong to murder huiman life. The only real question is when that life begin and by what stadards we use to determine than that. Physical attachment seems irrelevant in making that decision.

I am not arguing one side or the other, I'm just saying we don;t know enough about the problem yet to solve it.

 

[totalia]

Its a matter of perception when life begins. The religious will never agree with the scientists or the gvt's definition. The scientists will never agree with the religious or the gvt. And the gvt will never agree with the scientists or the religious.

Although the gvt is more likely to listen to the scientists (I hope) than they are the religious. Thats why the gvt must control things without such influence. There must be no impact by anything but what is actually good for society at large.

 

[chobie]

I think we have already established that I don't believe abortion is murder until the baby can live on its own outside the mother. Until such time, it is nothing more than a parasite. Just because its human doesn't mean otherwise.

I think this is just the latest "technique" by some in the anti-choice contingent. I believe they feel like they have gotten as much mileages as they are going to get from shoving pictures of fetuses in people faces so now they are going for the "it has nothing to do with religion or emotions. It's a logical argument".

 

[WDWHound]

Its a matter of perception when life begins. The religious will never agree with the scientists or the gvt's definition. The scientists will never agree with the religious or the gvt. And the gvt will never agree with the scientists or the religious.

Although the gvt is more likely to listen to the scientists (I hope) than they are the religious. Thats why the gvt must control things without such influence. There must be no impact by anything but what is actually good for society at large.

Again, there is no religious argument here. Thats a red herring. My test would be self awareness (I think therefore I am), but how do you prove that?

 

[WDWHound]

I think this is just the latest "technique" by some in the anti-choice contingent. I believe they feel like they have gotten as much mileages as they are going to get from shoving pictures of fetuses in people faces so now they are going for the "it has nothing to do with religion or emotions. It's a logical argument".

Excuse me. I have never once presented a religious argument on this, nor have I ever shoved a picture in your face. Drop the stereotypes and assumtion please.If you can tell me when life begins and give evidence for why, I would love to hear your views, but the physical connection argument just makes no sense to me.

 

[chobie]

Why would something have less rights simply because it is attached to you? Also, what about a baby that could syurvie outside the womb in intesive care?

Human life is human life. Our law says its wrong to murder huiman life. The only real question is when that life begin and by what stadards we use to determine than that. Physical attachment seems irrelevant in making that decision.

I am not arguing one side or the other, I'm just saying we don;t know enough about the problem yet to solve it.

Our law says its wrong to murder human life but then we have the death penalty and wars. So we have different laws concerning the ending of human life in many situations. Even if we do come up to a standard of its a life from conception I would still argue in favor of it not being considered murder to end that life. It is not murder to kill during war or to put convicted criminals to death even though many innocents have died that way as well.

 

[chobie]

Excuse me. I have never once presented a religious argument on this, nor have I ever shoved a picture in your face. Drop the stereotypes and assumtion please.If you can tell me when life begins and give evidence for why, I would love to hear your views, but the physical connection argument just makes no sense to me.

Sorry I did not mean you. I'm tyring to not make this personal. My views don't have to make sense to you, they are the law and I will fight to keep it that way.

 

[totalia]

I think this is just the latest "technique" by some in the anti-choice contingent. I believe they feel like they have gotten as much mileages as they are going to get from shoving pictures of fetuses in people faces so now they are going for the "it has nothing to do with religion or emotions. It's a logical argument".

yes, I've noticed that.