Jump to content

Abortion vs Your Religious Beliefs


Recommended Posts

There is life, that is harmful to other life, such as cancer and bacteria.

First off, not all bacteria are bad for us, and yet we kill them indiscriminately. same goes for "pests"; not all are bad, on the contrary, some are extremely good for our environment, we just don't LIKE having them around.

 

When we kill this, this is defensive killing. If such life posed no harm, we would live and let live. There are bacteria in our gut that are welcome to stay.

 

With abortion, the unborn is not usually harmful to life. In this case, this is not defensive killing, like with cancer, but offensive killing.

 

Define "harmful". Physically? Emotionally? Deadly? How 'bad' should an entity be for its elimination to not be immoral?

 

Unwanted pregnancies can destroy a woman's life, period. And i'm not going to get into the obvious horrible scenarios, like pregnancy following a rape or abuse. Unwanted pregnancy - ripped condom, problem with the pills, whatever it may be (doesn't hagve to be strictly irresponsibility of the woman), can DESTROY a woman's life.

 

Is that not harmful enough for your definition? And if not, why not? what do you define as harmful, whats the criteria, then? It seems we kill "harmful" life arbitrarily (bacteria, pests) even when they're not REAAALLY harmful, and yet in these cases where the 9-month pregnancy and life-long result can be something that ruins a life, that's not harmful enough? sounds a bit inconsistent to me.

 

 

Although, most women would call it defensive, since an unwanted child may adversely impact their social life. But that is more of a metaphorical life being defended by killing actual life as defined by science. Real life (unborn) is a threat to mystical life of hopes and dreams; religion of sorts?

It's not just their social life, my dear man. It's not to talk about this without having it grow inside you, but when you have a new entity growing in your own body, you need to want it. Imagine having a lump growing inside your intestines for 9 months, and then tell me it's just about "social life" impact.

 

It's much more than social life impact, and I think there needs to be a bit more respect to women in that aspect. The suggestion that it's a petty demand to be able to control her own body (as if it's just for "the social aspect") is, quite frankly, demeaning.

 

You think it's immoral? that's one thing, fine, argue it, debate it, but don't hint that this is a "social" matter as if women are beauty princesses, insisting on the control over their bodies because of social impact.

 

It's physiological. It's emotional, and with due respect, it's a life-long obligation.

 

If you think "real life" (unborn) is life, then you need to provide the logical explanation of that (which you didn't yet). But comparing the 'loss of that life' (still needs to prove it is comparable to anything) with the "social life" of the woman is offensive.

 

The fact *YOU* are not going to have a baby grow inside your belly doesn't mean it's this simple obviously-beautiful awesome lovely thing to happen. If it's planned, fine. If it's not, it's MUCH more than the social aspect.

 

I think we should have a bit more respect for women and their bodies than that.

 

~moo

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 236
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

In addition to Mooey's post, I would like to point out that this is in no way an argument based on logic, but a huge assumption on your part mixed with a seemingly limited knowledge of how pregnancy w

I'm not sure what you mean by "soul," but if you're talking about a supernatural entity, then what does that have to do with anything? Would not a soul also be a product of what it is "to begin with,"

I don't think anyone would argue that a raped woman should not be allowed to have an abortion. It seems clear to me that the emotional trauma is damaging enough to be worth the loss of the feotus. Of

Although, most women would call it defensive, since an unwanted child may adversely impact their social life. But that is more of a metaphorical life being defended by killing actual life as defined by science. Real life (unborn) is a threat to mystical life of hopes and dreams; religion of sorts?

 

In addition to Mooey's post, I would like to point out that this is in no way an argument based on logic, but a huge assumption on your part mixed with a seemingly limited knowledge of how pregnancy works and a grouping of a very large demographic into one tiny definition. A wise way of debating is to put yourself into the other parties shoes and come up with points FOR their point of view - I'm sure once you do this, you'll have something better to say than adversely impacting a social life.

 

I'm currently dating a girl who's had two children who is actually pro-life, anti-abortion, who was yelling at you from my side of the screen.

 

I agree wholeheartedly that abortion shouldn't be used as a method of birth control, but I also realize that unless it's *my* sperm that went into the egg, I should probably mind my own business unless I find it acceptable for others to make my decisions for me (and I don't)

Link to post
Share on other sites

At the very least, respect the fact that abortion isn't like giving up a sexy handbag or buying a new car or a pair of shoes which might impact a woman's social stance.

 

Whether a woman is pro life or pro choice, a pregnancy is a *MASSIVE* emotional, physiological and social impact, and an abortion is not something any woman go for with a smile on her face, whether she's "pro life" or "pro choice".

 

 

Quite frankly, to suggest otherwise, regardless of opinion on either side, is offensive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

btw, I wholeheartedly commend the last two statements by Dudde and mooeypoo. Quoted for truth (in spirit).

 

On earlier posts...bacteria, roaches, and such examples are irrelevant, they won't become living humans.

 

Now, as to whether they're a person in the womb, it's fairly simple and obvious when you consider it more thoughfully.

 

Has any culture now or ever listed the unborn among the population, or in census records? To do so would require names immediately on knowledge of pregnancy, a burial ceremony for miscarriages and/or a death certificate, in modern times a National ID # for the unborn, and being a legitimate dependent for parents to claim in household taxes. To name a few examples.

 

Thus, instead of a futile attempt to legally define when an unborn "person" begins life, wouldn't it be more realistic/constructive for people to agree on the stage of growth where abortion becomes more of a no-no?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On earlier posts...bacteria, roaches, and such examples are irrelevant, they won't become living humans.

Exactly. Those were examples to show that we can't talk about "life" only, we need to talk about *human* life, which means that there's a need to show that the fertilized cells are not just life, but human life.


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged
Thus, instead of a futile attempt to legally define when an unborn "person" begins life, wouldn't it be more realistic/constructive for people to agree on the stage of growth where abortion becomes more of a no-no?

There is such a decision, more or less, within the medical literature. The fetus is not considered human life until the second trimester; in countries where this debate is obsolete (in the many countries in Europe, for instance), abortion is legal up to the end of the second trimester. Third trimester abortions are no longer legal, and done only in special cases involving very specific health cases.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think "sentient life" is what we're looking for, in my opinion, to be moral.

 

I agree. Sentience is more important than anything else, be it DNA or whatever. I would consider it just as immoral to turn off a sentient computer as I would to kill a person.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Doesn't pro-choice necessarily extend the right of the mother over their child's life even past birth? I haven't seen this addressed yet.

 

Allow me to clarify.

 

It's very obvious that the general consensus is against the idea that life begins at fertilization: is contraception mass murder?, et cetera. But I'm speaking about the other end. If life doesn't begin at fertilization, where does it begin? Any cut-off further along with be necessarily arbitrary and will fall prey to the same arguments. Just like you can't use "it will become life" because it includes birth control causing the fertilized egg to fail to implant as murder, you can't use sentience as the definition because it excludes vegetative and comatose people. Anything specific will exclude something, and 'hands off and let the people involved decide' leads to women killing their five-year-olds because they don't want them anymore.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One experiment we could run to see if life begins at conception is to conceive life and see if it continues to exhibit all the properties of life. This will be hard data and not just sentiment.

 

It comes down to how we define life. There is a science definition, which only requires the self sustaining state associated with metabolism and replication, and a definition which uses philosophical arguments of some nebulous state we can't pin down with any type of certainty. Due to the separation of church and state, the state needs to go with the provable definition. Ironically, regular religion is closer to that proven by science than the nebulous definition developed by the newer atheist religion.

 

Birth control is not murder since neither the male or female starting components, are designed by nature to be self sustaining. We can prove that in the lab. But once they combine, we can prove this combined state is self sustaining life. Humans, in biology, can defined by the DNA. If we had a mass of cells in the beaker and needed to proof what life form it was, we would use the DNA. So all we need is DNA to define human, with conception provable as being a state where life becomes self sustaining.

Edited by pioneer
Link to post
Share on other sites
It's very obvious that the general consensus is against the idea that life begins at fertilization: is contraception mass murder?, et cetera. But I'm speaking about the other end. If life doesn't begin at fertilization, where does it begin? Any cut-off further along with be necessarily arbitrary and will fall prey to the same arguments.

mooey just brought up a good point.

 

There is such a decision, more or less, within the medical literature. The fetus is not considered human life until the second trimester; in countries where this debate is obsolete (in the many countries in Europe, for instance), abortion is legal up to the end of the second trimester.

 

Perhaps it's wise to follow the medical literature -- especially with its long history in practicing them and when its guidleines seem reasonably balanced enough -- in unreconcilable situations where debates by outsiders can't agree on a final determination.

Link to post
Share on other sites
There is life, that is harmful to other life, such as cancer and bacteria. When we kill this, this is defensive killing. If such life posed no harm, we would live and let live. There are bacteria in our gut that are welcome to stay.

 

With abortion, the unborn is not usually harmful to life. In this case, this is not defensive killing, like with cancer, but offensive killing.

 

Although, most women would call it defensive, since an unwanted child may adversely impact their social life. But that is more of a metaphorical life being defended by killing actual life as defined by science. Real life (unborn) is a threat to mystical life of hopes and dreams; religion of sorts?

 

Cancer isn't a life form. There seems to be a fundamental problem in the abortion debate revolving around what constitutes a "life" or "life form" biologically.

 

In very simple terms a fertilized egg is it's own self contained HUMAN life.

 

That it doesn't look human does not make it an insect.

 

The fact that it's brain is yet to fully develop does not equate it with a permanently brain dead human being.

 

That the human life in-utero subsists on nutrients from the host mother does not make the human life a leech any more than it makes the host mother a Brazilian cow.

 

What is really missing in the abortion debate is an agreement on terms even while both sides seem to have agreed on what words to use.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What is really missing in the abortion debate is an agreement on terms even while both sides seem to have agreed on what words to use.

 

that's because the debate is ideological, not scientific. What I mean is that non-scientists are drawing lines that probably aren't there, such as "life" and "nonlife" and "good" and "bad."

 

For example "self contained human life" doesn't mean anything to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

it might not make it a leech, but it certainly can develop the definition for a parasite - after all, besides emotional, there aren't many benefits the unborn child defers to it's host/mother.

 

I feel people pro-life allow themselves to become too emotionally attached to their version of what's right - essentially what ecoli suggested

 

EDIT:

of course the pro-choice side has it's fair share of the emotional arguers, but in my general exerience, the pro-life crowd is the side that refuses to budge on positions more frequently.

Link to post
Share on other sites
In very simple terms a fertilized egg is it's own self contained HUMAN life.

 

In many cases that would appear to make sense on some level. However, one must ask what makes it human? And in particular, how many lives is it? 0? 1/2? 1? 2? 3? 4? If you can't tell the difference between 4 humans and 1/2 of a human, then you have a problem.


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged
it might not make it a leech, but it certainly can develop the definition for a parasite - after all, besides emotional, there aren't many benefits the unborn child defers to it's host/mother.

 

It does seem to extend the mother's lifespan, at least nowadays when she isn't going to be dying in childbirth.

 

A similar but more artificial experiment hooked up a young mouse with an old mouse ( as in continuous mutual blood transfusions), and the old mouse's cells started acting a little younger.

Edited by Mr Skeptic
Consecutive posts merged.
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

It does seem to extend the mother's lifespan, at least nowadays when she isn't going to be dying in childbirth.

 

A similar but more artificial experiment hooked up a young mouse with an old mouse ( as in continuous mutual blood transfusions), and the old mouse's cells started acting a little younger.

 

So it's a mutualistic parasite. That doesn't really change the point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
it might not make it a leech, but it certainly can develop the definition for a parasite - after all, besides emotional, there aren't many benefits the unborn child defers to it's host/mother.

 

So is a new born.. should we be able to kill them as well?

 

And as for there being no benefit to the host mother during pregnancy, you are wrong.

 

I feel people pro-life allow themselves to become too emotionally attached to their version of what's right - essentially what ecoli suggested

 

EDIT:

of course the pro-choice side has it's fair share of the emotional arguers, but in my general exerience, the pro-life crowd is the side that refuses to budge on positions more frequently.

 

How far do you budge in your stance on other life and death issues?


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged
In many cases that would appear to make sense on some level. However, one must ask what makes it human? And in particular, how many lives is it? 0? 1/2? 1? 2? 3? 4? If you can't tell the difference between 4 humans and 1/2 of a human, then you have a problem.


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

I find your logic troubling. 75% of all pregnancies end with a live birth, while 25% miscarry. The pro-life stance is that every human life created should be given that 75% chance to be born. So you can now argue why they shouldn't be given that 75% chance at survival.

 

Arguing that a 25% miscarriage rate is problematic for the pro-life argument isn't really valid because in that 25% an abortion would turn out to be unnecessary anyway. The whole idea of an abortion is to stop a life that may be born.

 

There is also the rare case of abortion due to health risks to the mother, but in those cases abortion is justified if the risks are life threatening since the death of the mother would kill the unborn child anyway.


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged
So it's a mutualistic parasite. That doesn't really change the point.

 

What IS your point?

 

By the way, "mutualistic parasite"? I think you mean "symbiotic relationship".

Edited by jryan
Consecutive posts merged.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Newborns are definitely not self-sufficient (nor are much older children, for that matter), but they aren't directly, biologically linked in the same way once they've left the uterus and the umbilical cord is cut. Personally, I don't really like that as a criterion, though. I'm more interested in the being itself than its relationship to others.


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

of course the pro-choice side has it's fair share of the emotional arguers, but in my general exerience, the pro-life crowd is the side that refuses to budge on positions more frequently.

 

As I've said numerous times, what it comes down to is that the position is ultimately arbitrary. If you recognize this, you are necessarily going to be some form of "pro-choice," even if you personally would never have an abortion. If you don't think it's arbitrary, you could still be pro-choice if you think the objectively right answer allows for some forms of abortion. However, "pro-life" arguments necessarily have to insist on an objectively correct position, and so you're going to see a lot less "budging."

Link to post
Share on other sites
I find your logic troubling. 75% of all pregnancies end with a live birth, while 25% miscarry. The pro-life stance is that every human life created should be given that 75% chance to be born. So you can now argue why they shouldn't be given that 75% chance at survival.

 

Arguing that a 25% miscarriage rate is problematic for the pro-life argument isn't really valid because in that 25% an abortion would turn out to be unnecessary anyway. The whole idea of an abortion is to stop a life that may be born.

 

My logic is that since you don't know how many persons a fertilized egg is, you can't argue that a fertilized egg is a person. Also, nowhere did I mention miscarriages.

 

The question that you can't seem to answer is: how many people is one fertilized egg? I'm saying the most sensible answer is zero. You seem to be saying that it's somewhere above zero but you don't know how much. Miscarriages have nothing to do with any of this (unless you are talking potential for persons). Chimeras and twins, however, do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
My logic is that since you don't know how many persons a fertilized egg is, you can't argue that a fertilized egg is a person. Also, nowhere did I mention miscarriages.

 

The question that you can't seem to answer is: how many people is one fertilized egg? I'm saying the most sensible answer is zero. You seem to be saying that it's somewhere above zero but you don't know how much. Miscarriages have nothing to do with any of this (unless you are talking potential for persons). Chimeras and twins, however, do.

 

When you mentioned that a fertilized egg could be zero people the natural assumption would be that you meant a pregnancy that failed to reach full term... which, absent abortion, means miscarriage.

Link to post
Share on other sites
When you mentioned that a fertilized egg could be zero people the natural assumption would be that you meant a pregnancy that failed to reach full term... which, absent abortion, means miscarriage.

 

When I say that the number of persons that a bug is is zero, it likewise has nothing to do with abortion or miscarriage. But, are you in fact saying in the above that the fertilized egg is not yet a person? Otherwise abortion and miscarriage have no bearing on its personhood.

Link to post
Share on other sites
When I say that the number of persons that a bug is is zero, it likewise has nothing to do with abortion or miscarriage. But, are you in fact saying in the above that the fertilized egg is not yet a person? Otherwise abortion and miscarriage have no bearing on its personhood.

 

But you aren't talking about a bug. You are talking about fertilized human egg.

 

There would be a majority of entomologists that would strongly question your definition of a bug.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So is a new born.. should we be able to kill them as well?

 

why yes, I usually think so. I appreciate your reading back on my opinions to find out how I like to state all fetus's should be killed to save me time

/sarcasm

 

Never have I stated all fetus's should be killed, but thanks for your bout of extremism. I don't believe a newborn should be killed, once the newborn is free of the mother, it can be sustained using formula/etc., and is not directly linked via blood and umbilical, which was stated before.

 

How far do you budge in your stance on other life and death issues?

Pretty far, if I find better logic in a different path. Assisted deaths, for example, but that's another matter.

 

And as for there being no benefit to the host mother during pregnancy, you are wrong.

 

I hate to nitpick, I really do, but I didn't say "during times of pregnancy"

 

after all, besides emotional, there aren't many benefits the unborn child defers to it's host/mother.

 

The article pasted in response to that shows a lot of symptoms which get better during times of pregnancy, but really:

 

"About one third of women get better, one third stay the same, and, inexplicably, the symptoms of another third are worse."

 

doesn't strike me as being overwhelming evidence that the baby gives a giant immuno-bump or relief system from MS or arthritis. It's fortouitous for the mothers, but I didn't see the explanation of why it's directly linked to pregnancy, could be something else causing it

 

EDIT: I rescind this last statement, as I seem to have missed a paragraph that I found upon a reread. But this appears to be in the body's response to pregnancy as a whole, and while debatable, still not something I would credit to the fetus providing, but the body itself

 

As I've said numerous times, what it comes down to is that the position is ultimately

~~~

to insist on an objectively correct position, and so you're going to see a lot less "budging."

 

I agree and understand what you mean, however, by "pro-life" I'm referring to someone who ultimately disbelieves in abortion - whether they believe in arbitrary or not. Your argument, however, does nothing to credit them as to why they can refuse to accept arguments other than their own, rather than listen and rebutt. I apologize if I worded this poorly in my last statement, but is closer to what I meant, corrected:

 

of course the pro-choice side has it's fair share of the emotional arguers, but in my general exerience, the pro-life crowd is the side that refuses to listen and rebutt points on the opposing side, instead of refusing everything the other may have to say.

 

not quoting anyone in specific here, but referring to real life debates I've gone through

(my next post may take a while, I'm at work and feel that rushing posts may be affecting my ability to effectively say things)

Edited by Dudde
Link to post
Share on other sites
But you aren't talking about a bug. You are talking about fertilized human egg.

 

Quite. Have you figured out how many people in a fertilized egg yet? Or is it just some perhaps non-zero number of people?

 

There would be a majority of entomologists that would strongly question your definition of a bug.

 

I'm by no means equating the two. I'm using an analogy. I note that you also consider bugs to be zero people, regardless of how they may die or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

mooeypoo ,

I am both a human life and a person. Two things at one time. My personhood is dependent on my human life. There may have been a time when I was just a human life but not a person. That may happen at another time during my human life. If it does, I hope during that time people treat my human life with respect.

 

If you chop off my finger you have a finger and a disfigured human life that is also a person. If you clone a cell from my finger you create a new human life. In its early development, I don’t know if this new human life is a person, but I believe it should be shown respect and treated as something special. Why? Because it has the capacity to become a person. The person or persons that performed the cloning, in my opinion, have an obligation to this new human life. My detached finger has only one real value. That is the value to me if it can be reattached. If you care for this finger during detachment, you are treating me with respect, not the finger. If reattachment is not possible, the finger is nothing but trash.

 

Perhaps if you look at things at the other end of life. Remember Terri Schiavo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo_case) ? The day they removed her feeding tube for the last time, she was still a human life. She was however no longer a person. Almost no one believed she would become a person again. Keeping the human life part of Terri Schiavo alive was, in my opinion, disrespectful to the person who once was Terri Schiavo. It was also cruel to those who loved her most. Particularly those that that believed she still held or might regain her status as a person. Allowing her human life to end was a good thing.

 

If a woman is impregnated during a rape, the human life within her came about without an act of will on her part. If the woman chose to bring that human life to full gestation and birth, that would certainly be a heroic gesture. I don’t think people can be required to be heroic. Even if it could be proven that the human life within the woman was a person, I think one could sill argue that terminating that life is justifiable. It is still however tragic.

 

You keep making this argument about killing bacteria by washing with soap. Who cares about bacteria? I kill fully developed animals and eat them. I do it on purpose. I see no moral dilemma with doing this because I need to eat, and I find it to be enjoyable recreation. Now a Hindu would have a moral objection to hunting. But a Hindu thinks that dear is a person.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As for possible benefits of pregnancy, see this:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527453.900-elixir-of-youth-lurks-in-blood-of-conjoined-mice.html

This is in a sense like an artificial pregnancy, although there is more thorough blood mixing.

 

http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~mueller/FrCanpdf.pdf (pdf)

A correlation between having children and mother's lifespan.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.