Cognitive Dissonance in Action! Anti-Abortion activists speak!

Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Cognitive Dissonance in Action! Anti-Abortion activists speak!

 This video speaks for itself.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Whoa wtf wow

Whoa wtf wow unbelievable!

This is truely a demonstrative video that shows the biggest problem with theists is that they do not think. They admit it.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Those are the bloody signs

Those are the bloody signs (excuse the pun).  Damnit, I hate those signs!

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


SmallChristian
SmallChristian's picture
Posts: 87
Joined: 2007-03-21
User is offlineOffline
Wow.. I had no idea.  It'd

Wow.. I had no idea.  It'd be interesting though to see what other people may have said that showed no dissonance.  I'm sure he might have cut those out?


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
I guess it depends on the

I guess it depends on the circumstances, but I would think of it as a last resort. Like the very last resort. It should be strongly discouraged. I kinda agree with the cousnling part to see if she did it because she had no other options or did it to get rid of her kid.

 

I mean if a woman kills her baby when it's first born, that would be murder wouldn't it?

 

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Let's have a show of hands

 Let's have a show of hands for everyone who is surprised that Pineapple disapproves of abortion.

In the meantime, I'll say to smallchristian that I doubt there were many who didn't show cognitive dissonance because to do that, you'd have to actually agree to sentence young women as murderers, and you have to be damn near crazy to do that.  Some positions are inherently cognitively dissonant.  It's not the people.  It's the belief itself.

I mean, they're stuck!  It's murder.  They say so all the time.  Ok.  Let's go with what you say.  It's murder, so we should treat it just like murder...

unless... it's not just like murder, in which case, GET YOUR FUCKING SIGN OUT OF MY FACE AND GO HOME!

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


anniet
Silver Member
Posts: 325
Joined: 2008-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:I mean

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I mean if a woman kills her baby when it's first born, that would be murder wouldn't it?

That depends on the society you live in.  Our kids tend to live and we have other birth control alternatives so we do currently see this as murder, but that's not been a universal.

It would be awesome if people thought about the consequences of all their actions before acting and if accidents did not occur, but that's not reality.  Do remember that a good portion of women who get abortions are not in the best of situations to begin with.  Strongly discouraged?  Fine.  Counseling?  Probably a good idea, but are you going to see to it that they have counseling for all the other stuff in their life that is going down?  Not everyone has their shit together.  Forget raising a kid, do you really want those women carrying a child to term?

Secondly, why should I be encouraged to carry to term just because the idea of stopping cells from growing in my body makes someone else uncomfortable?  No one has the right to try and lay a guilt trip on me (or actively stop me) from executing what I know to be a responsible decision.  I'll absolutely not have it.  You seem like you have a strong personality.  I am surprised you would be willing to accept such behavior from others when it come to the integrity of your body.

BTW, there's also a population control issue.  If every woman gives birth to every child conceived and not miscarried then our population on Earth will grow faster than it already is.  That's not my main concern when thinking about abortion, but it is something to keep in mind.

"I am that I am." - Proof that the writers of the bible were beyond stoned.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:I guess

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I guess it depends on the circumstances, but I would think of it as a last resort. Like the very last resort. It should be strongly discouraged. I kinda agree with the cousnling part to see if she did it because she had no other options or did it to get rid of her kid.

 

I mean if a woman kills her baby when it's first born, that would be murder wouldn't it?

What kid? What baby?

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
anniet wrote:Do remember

anniet wrote:

Do remember that a good portion of women who get abortions are not in the best of situations to begin with.  Strongly discouraged?  Fine. 

 

Once again situation dictates, but only if there aren't any other options.

 

Quote:

Counseling?  Probably a good idea, but are you going to see to it that they have counseling for all the other stuff in their life that is going down?  Not everyone has their shit together.  Forget raising a kid, do you really want those women carrying a child to term?

 

Raising problem could be solved by adoption.

The counseling part could be a stepping stone. If they want to get rid of the kid because they are constantly depressed for example, they can be refered to the appropiate service. The added bonus is they may not have seeked out that counsling themselves.

 

Quote:

Secondly, why should I be encouraged to carry to term just because the idea of stopping cells from growing in my body makes someone else uncomfortable?  No one has the right to try and lay a guilt trip on me (or actively stop me) from executing what I know to be a responsible decision.  I'll absolutely not have it.  You seem like you have a strong personality.  I am surprised you would be willing to accept such behavior from others when it come to the integrity of your body.

 

I don't like the whole "don't judge me" view

 

 

 

 


anniet
Silver Member
Posts: 325
Joined: 2008-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Once

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Once again situation dictates, but only if there aren't any other options.

And who decides this?  What does "very last solution" mean when translated into reality from the abstract theoretical? 

 

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Raising problem could be solved by adoption.

The counseling part could be a stepping stone. If they want to get rid of the kid because they are constantly depressed for example, they can be refered to the appropiate service. The added bonus is they may not have seeked out that counsling themselves.

You're missing the point.  You expect someone who is having a hard time taking care of themselves due to whatever other external situations are in their lives to be able to have a child.  Then you expect them to be able to either give up what has now turned into a child without any major psychological issues or to responsibly raise the child.  You're also assuming that approproiate services are available, will be provided, and will actually help.  Are you willing to let some cells turn into a child based on this bet?  Seems like quite a gamble to me.  Have you seen the consequences of such a gamble failing?  This is also sounds like cognitive dissonance to me.  It's not as blatant as what is shown in the clip, but it's still there.  It's nice to be able to say "very last solution", but how does that actually play out in reality? 

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
I don't like the whole "don't judge me" view.

People can judge all they want.  That's totally fine.  What I don't accept is the idea that I (or you) should somehow give any weight to their judging because they are uncomfortable with a decision that has been made.  Why do you think other people should have a right to interfere in complex decisions regarding your life?  That's not a view that I understand.  I'm curious.  Can you explain to me why that works well  (specifically excluding the topic of harm to another person as that;s a whole 'nother ball of wax) ? 

"I am that I am." - Proof that the writers of the bible were beyond stoned.


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Raising

Cpt_pineapple wrote:


Raising problem could be solved by adoption.

Really? I thought that there were too few people willing to adopt children as it is.

If we really want to cut down on abortions we should have free contraceptives available for all and free anonymous sterilization. But ironically the same people who don't like abortions also tend to be the same people who don't like teaching children about contraceptives.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


SmallChristian
SmallChristian's picture
Posts: 87
Joined: 2007-03-21
User is offlineOffline
 The abortion thing is a

 The abortion thing is a tough one.  I am pro-life myself, although I have dissonance with this issue as well.  I really don't like the idea of a human life being stopped after the embryo begins.  It really does seem like murder because you're preventing a human from being born who should be born if of course the pregnancy goes well.


Balkoth
Posts: 118
Joined: 2008-11-25
User is offlineOffline
SmallChristian wrote: The

SmallChristian wrote:
The abortion thing is a tough one.  I am pro-life myself, although I have dissonance with this issue as well.  I really don't like the idea of a human life being stopped after the embryo begins.

Keep this in mind: being "pro-life" (aka pro-law) means that not only do you not like the idea, you think you have the right to dictate what woman do with their bodies.  I imagine many pro-choice people don't like the idea of the life being ended, but that's not really the issue here.

Quote:
 It really does seem like murder because you're preventing a human from being born who should be born if of course the pregnancy goes well.

Underlined/bolded an important word.  Why *should* they be born?  Do you mean they would normally be born?

Also: what do you think should happen to women who have illegal abortions, if you got your way?


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
anniet wrote:Cpt_pineapple

anniet wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Once again situation dictates, but only if there aren't any other options.

And who decides this?  What does "very last solution" mean when translated into reality from the abstract theoretical? 

 

 

The decision is made like any other medical decision, the mother under medical consultation and of course the "clump of cells" should be taken under consideration.

 

 

Quote:

Then you expect them to be able to either give up what has now turned into a child without any major psychological issues or to responsibly raise the child.

 

What about the psychological issues of ending a pregnancy?

 

 

 

Quote:

You're also assuming that approproiate services are available, will be provided, and will actually help.

 

Sure, government isn't really all the efficent, but nothing is 100% efficent.

 

But some programs available/provided are more useful than none.

 

 

Quote:

Are you willing to let some cells turn into a child based on this bet?  Seems like quite a gamble to me.  Have you seen the consequences of such a gamble failing?

 

At least my idea provides the mother with helpful resources. Maybe the mother can improve her situation with some help from these services.

 

 

Quote:

What I don't accept is the idea that I (or you) should somehow give any weight to their judging because they are uncomfortable with a decision that has been made.

 

What I don't accept is people making such important decisions without at least considering other options. The mother should be presented with alternatives.

Quote:

Why do you think other people should have a right to interfere in complex decisions regarding your life?

 

No, people should be able to get help making complex decisions regarding their life.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Desdenova
atheist
Desdenova's picture
Posts: 410
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
The lifers and the middle of

The lifers and the middle of the roaders have too much sway. So in order to maintain a degree of balance, I must take the pro-abortion stance. Mandatory abortions of all children up to and including the 85th trimester. Anything past that is a living, hopefully sentient creature with a right to live.

P.S. Would it make everyone feel better if we called it a tenant eviction instead of an abortion?

It takes a village to raise an idiot.

Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.

Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:Really? I thought

 

Quote:
Really? I thought that there were too few people willing to adopt children as it is.

There are, and it's worse than that.  I don't know about Canada, so I'm not so much answering Pineapple as talking about America, but there are severe shortages of adoptive parents compared to children who need adopting.

Consider:

Most people who meet the requirements for adoption are white.  Most of the babies that need to be adopted are black.  Everybody who talks about adoption in abortion discussions seems to have this rosy image of middle class white families adopting the children of middle class white teenagers, but that's not where most of the children come from.  They come from very poor black families, and often, they are forcibly taken by the state.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander

Jormungander wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

 

Raising problem could be solved by adoption.

Really? I thought that there were too few people willing to adopt children as it is.

 

We could increase adoption awareness, get more minorities to consider adopting, such as gay couples or non-fertile couples.

 

Like I said not perfect, but it could help a lot of people.

 

Quote:

If we really want to cut down on abortions we should have free contraceptives available for all and free anonymous sterilization.

 

I think birth control is the best option, besides  the dreaded 'A' word.

 


 

 

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

 

Quote:
Really? I thought that there were too few people willing to adopt children as it is.

There are, and it's worse than that.  I don't know about Canada, so I'm not so much answering Pineapple as talking about America, but there are severe shortages of adoptive parents compared to children who need adopting.

Consider:

Most people who meet the requirements for adoption are white.  Most of the babies that need to be adopted are black.  Everybody who talks about adoption in abortion discussions seems to have this rosy image of middle class white families adopting the children of middle class white teenagers, but that's not where most of the children come from.  They come from very poor black families, and often, they are forcibly taken by the state.

 

 

 

I've been looking at some stats and most seem white/non-hispanic

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/statistics/race_tbl2_2006.htm

 

 

For some reason D.C has 0% , the next lowest is Puerto Rico which isn't really surprising.

 

But most states have majority white.

 

 

 

 


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:We could

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

We could increase adoption awareness, get more minorities to consider adopting, such as gay couples or non-fertile couples.

Awareness isn't the problem. Gay men and infertile people are already aware that adoption is their only choice. What we need is stong incentives to adopt. Perhaps we should estimate how much it costs to keep children in foster homes and orphanages, and give that much money to adoptive parents in the form of tax breaks. It would cost the government nothing, and would  push people to adopt. Also our adoption system is too difficult to navigate. I know a couple who adopted two Korean children because they felt that the US adoption system is too much of a pain in the ass for them.

But yes, reform and perhaps advertisement of adoption is the US is needed.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:I've been looking at

 

Quote:
I've been looking at some stats and most seem white/non-hispanic

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/statistics/race_tbl2_2006.htm

That does seem to contradict everything I said, doesn't it?  I guess that's what I get for listening to social workers instead of getting the stats myself.  Maybe I misunderstood what I was told, or maybe it's something local for my area or something.  Anyway, I retract what I said.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


SmallChristian
SmallChristian's picture
Posts: 87
Joined: 2007-03-21
User is offlineOffline
Balkoth wrote:SmallChristian

Balkoth wrote:

SmallChristian wrote:
The abortion thing is a tough one.  I am pro-life myself, although I have dissonance with this issue as well.  I really don't like the idea of a human life being stopped after the embryo begins.

Keep this in mind: being "pro-life" (aka pro-law) means that not only do you not like the idea, you think you have the right to dictate what woman do with their bodies.  I imagine many pro-choice people don't like the idea of the life being ended, but that's not really the issue here.

Quote:
 It really does seem like murder because you're preventing a human from being born who should be born if of course the pregnancy goes well.

Underlined/bolded an important word.  Why *should* they be born?  Do you mean they would normally be born?

Also: what do you think should happen to women who have illegal abortions, if you got your way?

 

They *should* be born, if the pregnancy goes well.  Yes, I mean if they normally would be born without the intervention of an abortion being done.

Women who are attempting an abortion and are caught should either be jailed or accept a program that will help them with the pregnancy, teach them how to be a good parent and all that good stuff.  If an illegal abortion takes place, I'd say a prison sentence would be mandatory to prevent and ensure women don't go out and willfully terminate their pregnancies.  Afterall, there has to be a deterrant! Right?

Here's where I get all mixed up on abortion.  Questions like, what if she was raped by her brother, father, uncle?  What if she is not equipped (mentally, financially, etc) to have a child?  Well there could always be an abortion clause, where a woman is entitled to having abortion if she can prove in court that she was raped or is an unfit mother.  This can be a trial by jury, if she is proven by the jury that she is justified in having the abortion then she can go ahead and have it, and if it were done illegaly she can be aquitted because she had it for the right reasons.

What about the right to her own body?  So a whore can go around aborting fetuses because she doesn't want to have children?  

To be honest, I think abortion is justified in some cases, but I don't think it should be something that every woman has a righnt to at a whim (just because she wants to) 

What abhout the man's seed that caused the unborn fetus to grow in the first place?  Shouldn't that man, providing they had consential sex, have a right or a say on the matter?

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 What Does Sugar Have To Do

 What Does Sugar Have To Do With Murder?!

The first few paragraphs deal in depth with the word "should" and the danger of equivocating when using it.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:That does

Hambydammit wrote:
That does seem to contradict everything I said, doesn't it?  I guess that's what I get for listening to social workers instead of getting the stats myself.  Maybe I misunderstood what I was told, or maybe it's something local for my area or something.  Anyway, I retract what I said.

That's a look at children adopted - that is, placed in a home. It really doesn't suggest much as to the adaptability of any of the 'races', since the percentages seem to be along local population lines.

We need a look at children available for adoption to answer the question. Sadly, adoption in the us isn't handled in any central way, and data will likely be inconclusive.

However, as for the viability of adoption itself, have a look here: Children in Public Foster Care Waiting to be Adopted: FY 1999 thru FY 2006

127,000 children in the foster care system alone awaiting adoption. An unknown number in child protective agencies, shelters, and on the streets. How do you make up for those numbers, especially when people in the US have proven to much prefer to make their own children, even if it requires expensive medical intervention.

Which is, of course, the human instinct.

Adoption is not even a stop-gap, never mind a solution.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


RatDog
atheistSilver Member
Posts: 562
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: I've

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

 

I've been looking at some stats and most seem white/non-hispanic

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/statistics/race_tbl2_2006.htm

 

 

For some reason D.C has 0% , the next lowest is Puerto Rico which isn't really surprising.

 

But most states have majority white.

 

I'm a little confused about what you are trying to say with this.  The statistics you linked seem to indicate that in most states most adoptions are of white babies.  Hambydammit wrote that "Most people who meet the requirements for adoption are white."  What you posted seems to agree with what he said.  Is that your intention?   


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Here's from the U.S census

Here's from the U.S census

 

It would appear it's split mostly between black/white.

 

 

www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/09s0560.xls

 

 [edit: scrapped table to avoid stretching the page]

 

 

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
bah the table kinda fucked

bah the table kinda fucked up, just click the link [mirosoft excel file]

 

 


Desdenova
atheist
Desdenova's picture
Posts: 410
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Now take a look at the state

Now take a look at the state by state race distribution stats.

http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparebar.jsp?ind=6&cat=1

It takes a village to raise an idiot.

Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.

Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.


Balkoth
Posts: 118
Joined: 2008-11-25
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit, I read that

Hambydammit, I read that essay a while back.  I'll read it again tomorrow.

SmallChristian wrote:
The abortion thing is a tough one.  I am pro-life myself, although I have dissonance with this issue as well.  I really don't like the idea of a human life being stopped after the embryo begins.

Balkoth wrote:
Keep this in mind: being "pro-life" (aka pro-law) means that not only do you not like the idea, you think you have the right to dictate what woman do with their bodies.  I imagine many pro-choice people don't like the idea of the life being ended, but that's not really the issue here.

Did you have anything you wanted to mention about that?  Agree?  Disagree?

SmallChristian wrote:
 They *should* be born, if the pregnancy goes well.  Yes, I mean if they normally would be born without the intervention of an abortion being done.

So because a woman getting pregnant "normally" results in childbirth, barring complications that aren't exactly rare, it is therefore "right" for them to have the child and not have an abortion?  And "wrong" for them to have an abortion?  Do you believe the fetus has rights and therefore it is "wrong," or simply that because pregnancy "normally" results in childbirth that abortion is "wrong?"  Usually we hear about people screaming "Abortion is murder!" instead of what you seem to be saying.

SmallChristian wrote:
Women who are attempting an abortion and are caught should either be jailed or accept a program that will help them with the pregnancy, teach them how to be a good parent and all that good stuff.

Sounds...easy.  All that good stuff.  For any woman that is pregnant and tries to get an abortion.

SmallChristian wrote:
If an illegal abortion takes place, I'd say a prison sentence would be mandatory to prevent and ensure women don't go out and willfully terminate their pregnancies.  Afterall, there has to be a deterrant! Right?

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not here.

Quote:
What if she is not equipped (mentally, financially, etc) to have a child?

I'm probably sticking my foot in my mouth here, but who do you think most people wanting an abortion likely are?

Quote:
What about the right to her own body?  So a whore can go around aborting fetuses because she doesn't want to have children?

To quote what you just said..."What if she is not equipped (mentally, financially, etc) to have a child?"

Quote:
What abhout the man's seed that caused the unborn fetus to grow in the first place?  Shouldn't that man, providing they had consential sex, have a right or a say on the matter?

Offering his opinion is one thing.  Forcing her to have an abortion or to not have an abortion is another.  If the woman doesn't want to have the child, do you think the father should legally be able to force her to have it anyway?


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Okay, no more stats, we got

Okay, no more stats, we got what we need.

So we have

 

1] A near 50/50 distribution of white/black up for adoption

2] Blacks are in the minority in the general population [~12%]

3] So we have a higher number of blacks up for adoption relative to their population.

4] Most of the adopted kids are white.

 

So the U.S adoption situation needs work. A LOT of work. [Don't you guys have Angelina Jolie?]

 

 

Anyway, I'm sure being in a state foster home or whatever is better than not being alive at all.

 

I suppose extra incentives for inter-racial adoption, and of course birth control or absitiencee to prevent this coming up in the first place.

 

 

 

 

 


Desdenova
atheist
Desdenova's picture
Posts: 410
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Balkoth wrote:Offering his

Balkoth wrote:

Offering his opinion is one thing.  Forcing her to have an abortion or to not have an abortion is another.  If the woman doesn't want to have the child, do you think the father should legally be able to force her to have it anyway?

Devil's advocate here, but how then is it right to force a man to pay child support for a child if the man desired the woman to abort it? If the man is required to provide support, why then is he denied equal say in the abortion decision?

It takes a village to raise an idiot.

Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.

Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.


theotherguy
theotherguy's picture
Posts: 294
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
Desdenova wrote:Now take a

Desdenova wrote:

Now take a look at the state by state race distribution stats.

http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparebar.jsp?ind=6&cat=1

 

Bingo. Blacks are heavily overrepresented here. From those statistics, it looks like blacks make up close to 50 percent of the foster care population, yet they often account for less than 25 percent of the total population in most states.

 

For the record, I am pro-choice. Firstly, the blastocyst or foetus inside a woman's womb is not a person. It may be a living being, but it is not yet a person. The line gets fuzzy later on in development, but I am sorry, a creature with no capacity for thought, emotion, memory, or any capacity to understand or comprehend pain cannot be considered a person.

There is a difference between killing and murder. Killing a bacterium is not murder. Killing a fly is not murder. We consider murder to be the killing of a rational being against that being's will. The foetus has no will, and is not rational. Killing it cannot be considered murder.

Consider the following moral dilemma:

You are in a room with a three year old child (who  cannot walk) and 100 billion fertilized egg cells on a tray. Suddenly, a fire breaks out in the room. You have two choices:

A) Carry the three year old child to safety, causing certain death to the 100 billion fertilized egg cells.

B) Carry  the tray of egg cells to safety, causing certain death to the 3 year old child.

 

Which do you choose? If you are a sane and moral person, I would hope that you chose option (A), because the 3 year old child is a person, who has the capability for thought, emotion, memory, and the capacity to feel and understand pain, while the egg cells are merely potential people.

Further, just because it is a "potential" person does not in any way give it the same rights as "actual" people. What we have is the "hypothetical" imperative not to kill the foetus, because hypothetically, the killing could result in the  snuffing out of a great person. However, hyptotheticals are never garunteed. The foetus could have been the most terrible, evil person in the world. It could have died in childbirth. It could have killed the mother upon being born, and then died afterwards. The fact is, we have no idea what,hyptothetically, would have come of this foetus. We must then make our moral decisions based on the action and the intent of the person requesting the abortion.

The woman requesting an abortion does not have a malicious intent (hopefully), she does not will the death of her foetus simply to make it suffer. She is aborting it because she does not have the means or the desire to carry out a pregnancy and birth.

Even more imporantly, what a woman does with her own body and reproductive organs, (which, almost certainly, includes the foetus that is growing in her) is not and should not be a concern of the state. The state should have no control over what  we do with our own bodies, and they do not have the power to mandatorily require a woman to give birth.

 


Desdenova
atheist
Desdenova's picture
Posts: 410
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:[Don't

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

[Don't you guys have Angelina Jolie?]

No. I keep trying, but she keeps filing restraining orders. And all because of the Lara Croft bondage art I drew for her.

It takes a village to raise an idiot.

Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.

Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Balkoth wrote:Offering his

Balkoth wrote:

Offering his opinion is one thing.  Forcing her to have an abortion or to not have an abortion is another.  If the woman doesn't want to have the child, do you think the father should legally be able to force her to have it anyway?

 

 

Here's another kettle of worms.

 

It is technically his kid too right? And if the woman didn't want a kid, why did she....? oh nevermind

 

I know after saying that people are going to bring up rape, but as I said before it depends on the situation.

 

I'm talking consensuial here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
theotherguy wrote: There is

theotherguy wrote:

 

There is a difference between killing and murder. Killing a bacterium is not murder. Killing a fly is not murder. We consider murder to be the killing of a rational being against that being's will. The foetus has no will, and is not rational. Killing it cannot be considered murder.

 

But going out and randomly clubbing Seals is immoral. Kicking puppies is immoral. Seals and puppies aren't rational.

 

Quote:

Consider the following moral dilemma:

You are in a room with a three year old child (who  cannot walk) and 100 billion fertilized egg cells on a tray. Suddenly, a fire breaks out in the room. You have two choices:

A) Carry the three year old child to safety, causing certain death to the 100 billion fertilized egg cells.

B) Carry  the tray of egg cells to safety, causing certain death to the 3 year old child.

 

Which do you choose?

 

The kid.

 

Quote:

 It could have died in childbirth. It could have killed the mother upon being born, and then died afterwards.

modern medicine has come a long way. They can determine if the mother or baby will die

Quote:

The woman requesting an abortion does not have a malicious intent (hopefully), she does not will the death of her foetus simply to make it suffer. She is aborting it because she does not have the means or the desire to carry out a pregnancy and birth.

 

The question would be why does she not have the desire/means to carry out the pregnancy?

 

Quote:

Even more imporantly, what a woman does with her own body and reproductive organs, (which, almost certainly, includes the foetus that is growing in her) is not and should not be a concern of the state. The state should have no control over what  we do with our own bodies, and they do not have the power to mandatorily require a woman to give birth.

 

 

 

What about the baby? It has different DNA from the mother, so wouldn't that make it seperate?

 

 

[edit]

 

You know I just realized something, you call it a "potiental person", however, technically a two year old is still developing/growing do they count?

 

[/edit]

 

 

Desdenova wrote:

No. I keep trying, but she keeps filing restraining orders. And all because of the Lara Croft bondage art I drew for her.

She's stuck up for sure.

 

 

 

 

 


Balkoth
Posts: 118
Joined: 2008-11-25
User is offlineOffline
Desdenova wrote:Devil's

Desdenova wrote:
Devil's advocate here, but how then is it right to force a man to pay child support for a child if the man desired the woman to abort it? If the man is required to provide support, why then is he denied equal say in the abortion decision?

1, as I imagine you noticed, I specifically avoided asking that question and asked only the converse.  I saw an entire thread where MattShizzle and several other people were having a heated argument over this topic a while back.  http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/hamurookis_irrational_precepts/3514  I don't mind opening that can of worms, but I was trying to avoid derailing this thread too much unless others wanted to do so.

2, what does equal say mean anyway?  Woman says she wants an abortion, man says no.  Equal say.  What happens?  Woman says she doesn't want an abortion, man says yes.  Equal say.  What happens?  If they both have equal say, does that mean their opinions cancel each other out if they disagree and she has the child?  I realize you're playing Devil's Advocate, but how would you define equal say, let alone practically apply it?


Balkoth
Posts: 118
Joined: 2008-11-25
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:It is

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
It is technically his kid too right? And if the woman didn't want a kid, why did she....? oh nevermind

 

I know after saying that people are going to bring up rape, but as I said before it depends on the situation. 

No, I don't think people are automatically going to bring up rape.  Well, it usually comes up, but I think people know that you're not talking about that situation.

As to..."And if the woman didn't want a kid, why did she....(have sex)?" do you really need an answer from someone else?  Especially after a recent thread in another forum?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're trying to say that the consequence for a woman getting pregnant via consensual sex is that she should be obliged to carry and deliver the child?  If so, what, if any, exceptions do you think should be made?


RatDog
atheistSilver Member
Posts: 562
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:But

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

But going out and randomly clubbing Seals is immoral. Kicking puppies is immoral. Seals and puppies aren't rational.

If I went out and killed a bunch of chickens for no reason then most people would find my actions to be immoral.  If I went out and killed a bunch of chickens for food then most people would find my actions morale.  The difference between these two cases is that in one of them I have a reason for what I'm doing and in the other one I don't. 

I personally feel that harming anything without a reason is immoral. yet people who get abortions generally have good reasons (for example not wanting or being able to take care of a child).  To me abortion would seem to be a completely different situation.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Balkoth wrote: As to..."And

Balkoth wrote:

 

As to..."And if the woman didn't want a kid, why did she....(have sex)?" do you really need an answer from someone else?  Especially after a recent thread in another forum?

 

 

Well yeah. Considering she knows she could get pregnant.

 

Balkoth wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're trying to say that the consequence for a woman getting pregnant via consensual sex is that she should be obliged to carry and deliver the child?  If so, what, if any, exceptions do you think should be made?

Exceptions: Danger to her life, some type of genetic disorder or some other complication to the baby stuff like that.

 

RatDog wrote:

I personally feel that harming anything without a reason is immoral. yet people who get abortions generally have good reasons (for example not wanting or being able to take care of a child).  To me abortion would seem to be a completely different situation.

 

 

Wait so, why is not wanting a baby a good reason? Should it be had if she just doesn't want it and for no other reason?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


RatDog
atheistSilver Member
Posts: 562
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Wait so,

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Wait so, why is not wanting a baby a good reason? Should it be had if she just doesn't want it and for no other reason?

The morality for killing or harming humans is different then the morality for killing or harming non humans.  The reason why these two things have different morality is because we are human, and we determine morality.  It makes logical since to give ourselves special right and privileges simply because we want them.  It is unlikely that the chicken will rebel against our tyrannical rule.  


That said at exactly what point does a person become a person, and become entitled to all the right and privileges our society assigns to such states?  If a fetus is to be given these rights and privileges then abortion is literally murder, and must be punished as such.  If a fetus is not give these rights and privileges then the morality of abortion should be determined the same way we determine morality for other things that we do not give humans states to. 

 
If a person does not want a dog most people would find it morally acceptable to get rid of that dog.  They would probably bright it to the pound.  Pounds in America are not able to take care of all the animals people bring to them.  Many of those animals are killed simple because society does not want to expend the necessary resources to take care of them.  They are killed because they are not wanted.  Many people find this to be moral.  I personal find this less moral then abortion because dogs in my opinion are more capable of suffering then fetuses.  To answer your question I think that not wanting a fetus is adequate reason for an abortion.

 


SmallChristian
SmallChristian's picture
Posts: 87
Joined: 2007-03-21
User is offlineOffline
 Balkoth wrote:Balkoth

 

Balkoth wrote:


Balkoth wrote:

Keep this in mind: being "pro-life" (aka pro-law) means that not only do you not like the idea, you think you have the right to dictate what woman do with their bodies.  I imagine many pro-choice people don't like the idea of the life being ended, but that's not really the issue here.

 

Did you have anything you wanted to mention about that?  Agree?  Disagree?

As the pro-lifers are, I disagree with them, but I do think abortion should be illegal as I said in my previous post and explained in my previous post.  You think women have the right to dictate what they can do with unborn fetuses?  I disagree.  I think she should be granted the right to eject her unborn fetus if she can prove that it would be best.  I agree that pro-choice people don't like the idea either,so whats the problem of making it illegal if this can be proven?  I feel that the "person to be" should be considered important.  But it's also important to ensurethe oen having the abortion is doing it for the right reasons.  Since most abortions probably are justified, what's the harm with my version of the law?

Quote:

SmallChristian wrote:

 They *should* be born, if the pregnancy goes well.  Yes, I mean if they normally would be born without the intervention of an abortion being done.

 

So because a woman getting pregnant "normally" results in childbirth, barring complications that aren't exactly rare, it is therefore "right" for them to have the child and not have an abortion?  And "wrong" for them to have an abortion?  Do you believe the fetus has rights and therefore it is "wrong," or simply that because pregnancy "normally" results in childbirth that abortion is "wrong?"  Usually we hear about people screaming "Abortion is murder!" instead of what you seem to be saying.

what do you mean by "normally", "right" and "wrong"? I'm lost also on the complications, which ones?  I believe that the unborn fetus should be regarded as a human life.  I also believe abortion can be justified in some cases.  I've said this before already.  Not sure why you've asked me this SAME question 3 times.

Quote:

 

SmallChristian wrote:
Women who are attempting an abortion and are caught should either be jailed or accept a program that will help them with the pregnancy, teach them how to be a good parent and all that good stuff.

 

Sounds...easy.  All that good stuff.  For any woman that is pregnant and tries to get an abortion.

ie counseling, parenting classes, therapy, group therapy, etc etc etc etc.  Things like that.  

Quote:

 

SmallChristian wrote:
If an illegal abortion takes place, I'd say a prison sentence would be mandatory to prevent and ensure women don't go out and willfully terminate their pregnancies.  Afterall, there has to be a deterrant! Right?

 

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not here.

Yes, I mean a prison sentance, but as said before, a trial by jury to prove whether or not she did it because she's sick, unfit for parency, or raped.

Quote:

 

Quote:
What if she is not equipped (mentally, financially, etc) to have a child?

 

I'm probably sticking my foot in my mouth here, but who do you think most people wanting an abortion likely are?

 

 

Yeah, most people wanting an abortion probably are not equipped.  Why not make it illegal then, and if they can prove this with each case let them?  What's the problem there?  Obviously with my version of pro-life laws it wouldn't hurt at all, you just said so yourself.

Quote:

 

Quote:
What about the right to her own body?  So a whore can go around aborting fetuses because she doesn't want to have children?

 

To quote what you just said..."What if she is not equipped (mentally, financially, etc) to have a child?"

Case in point

Quote:

 

Quote:
What abhout the man's seed that caused the unborn fetus to grow in the first place?  Shouldn't that man, providing they had consential sex, have a right or a say on the matter?

 

Offering his opinion is one thing.  Forcing her to have an abortion or to not have an abortion is another.  If the woman doesn't want to have the child, do you think the father should legally be able to force her to have it anyway?

If the father wants the child and the woman does not want the child, I believe the father should have a say on the matter.  If the father can prove that he can take care of the baby then yes she should have the child.   My whole reasoning on abortion isn't a woman's right, it's the fact that the child should be a human life.  But it shouldn't be black and white, a woman should be granted a right to an abortion providing she can prove that it would be better for the child not to have been born at all.  You use rhetoric like "womens rights" and "father forcing" - Do you believe that an unborn fetus has no human quality at all? it's not human? It should be regarded as sludge and nothing else?  No rights for the unborn fetus then?  

If the Father does NOT want the child, and the Mother does, then he should NOT have to pay child support but by all means the baby should be born.  

IT doesn't mean the father should force an abortion, because the father can opt-out on paying child support.  It also doesn't mean that the woman is FORCED to have the baby because the father wants one.  The Father would have to prove he would provide parenting.  The unborn fetus' life is important afterall!!!  Well, to ME anyways, it seemsot me  that you think they're worthless.


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Should should should

Should should should should.

That's a nasty little word.

No rights for blastocysts! No rights for trophoblasts! Heck, no rights for anything in the Carnegie stages of development.

There's not enough developed CNS for it to be aware, or to suffer. Therefore it does not have human value.

Forcing pregnacies to term is an act of cruelty - for the resulting child. Unwanted children kept by one of the parents are often treated as nothing more than a burden and grow without a sense of connection, worth to society or sense of personal future. Children in the foster care system also tend to grow without a sense of belonging or connectivity even when the foster parents are of high quality.

Abortion needs to be kept as the moral last defense against against such cruelty. And because the woman bears the unsharable brunt of the effort of bringing a pregnancy to term, she gets the final say over the father's objections. If the man wants a child, he should contract with the woman for it.

Remember we can not apply rational rules to people's mating behaviors. It's too base an urge to expect anyone to pause and say "Is this the best course of action?" Unintended pregnancies are going to continue to happen to people in all walks of life and they need every option available to make thier best moral choice.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


SmallChristian
SmallChristian's picture
Posts: 87
Joined: 2007-03-21
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift wrote:Should

JillSwift wrote:

Should should should should.

That's a nasty little word.

Got it.

Quote:
No rights for blastocysts! No rights for trophoblasts! Heck, no rights for anything in the Carnegie stages of development.

There's not enough developed CNS for it to be aware, or to suffer. Therefore it does not

have human value.

But it will turn into human value, why do you think that's not enough?  This is where I get really stuck.

Quote:

Forcing pregnacies to term is an act of cruelty - for the resulting child. Unwanted children kept by one of the parents are often treated as nothing more than a burden and grow without a sense of connection, worth to society or sense of personal future. Children in the foster care system also tend to grow without a sense of belonging or connectivity even when the foster parents are of high quality.

So unwanted children are doomed and are bad for society?  Why not just kill them then?

Quote:
Abortion needs to be kept as the moral last defense against against such cruelty. And because the woman bears the unsharable brunt of the effort of bringing a pregnancy to term, she gets the final say over the father's objections. If the man wants a child, he should contract with the woman for it.

I suppose that's fair, as long as the man doesn't have to pay child support if he doesn't want the kid.  

Quote:
Remember we can not apply rational rules to people's mating behaviors. It's too base an urge to expect anyone to pause and say "Is this the best course of action?" Unintended pregnancies are going to continue to happen to people in all walks of life and they need every option available to make thier best moral choice.

I agree, whatever is best for the child to be, if it is better that the child not exist because of negative circumstance then by all means terminate the pregnancy.


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
SmallChristian wrote:But it

SmallChristian wrote:
But it will turn into human value, why do you think that's not enough?  This is where I get really stuck.
I just explained that. The embryo can not suffer now, but if allowed to be come an unwanted child it will then suffer. Which is moral?

SmallChristian wrote:
So unwanted children are doomed and are bad for society?  Why not just kill them then?
See above.

SmallChristian wrote:
I suppose that's fair, as long as the man doesn't have to pay child support if he doesn't want the kid.
As long as it's clear he doesn't want the child. (mind you a great deal of the unwanted children I've dealt with in my line of work were the result of empty promises by the father, followed by abandonment.)

SmallChristian wrote:
I agree, whatever is best for the child to be, if it is better that the child not exist because of negative circumstance then by all means terminate the pregnancy.
And the mother not wanting the child is certainly a negative circumstance.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


anniet
Silver Member
Posts: 325
Joined: 2008-08-06
User is offlineOffline
I'm glad to see so many

I'm glad to see so many people who are competent - able to care for themselves and likely others.  Please remember that there are a lot of people not in this position.  If you are competent you likely do not interact with them and do not see the ways in which they act and the consequences of their decisions. 

The opposition to abortion seems to boil down to a feeling that life itself needs to be respected.  This is a helpful position to take, but only to a point.  It breaks down when you assume that everyone else has that same reverence for life and are going to act upon that reverence in the same manner you would. 

"So a whore can go around aborting fetuses because she doesn't want to have children?"  What makes you think she is going to stop her behavior long enough to responsibly carry a child to term?  That is an irrational assumption based in the same type of fantasy land overlaid on the real world that theists use in viewing the world around them.  Of course, I imagine some of you are theists, so this may not bother you.  But I thought the rest of us were here to look at reality without fantasy.

When you are in the midst of serious day-to-day existence, 9 months may as well be forever.  Have you ever looked into the eyes of a woman who knows they should not have had children?  Have you ever seen the knowledge that she has fucked them up so bad that there is no realistic chance they can ever truly enjoy and embrace life cloud her eyes?  Have you ever interacted with the children that have resulted from the decision to have a child when a woman was not capable of raising a child has done so?  Yes, there are wonderful stories in a Horatio Alger vein that pay tribute to children who have triumphed over their circumstances.  The larger percentage who are left quite damaged are not heralded in such a manner and their stories are not told because they are not uplifting tales.  I suggest you go find such a woman (it's really not that difficult) and take a look.  Look at the real world consequences of the position you are advocating.

For those of you advocating a level of reverence for the life capabilities represented by a fetus, what have you done to demonstrate this level of reverence for children born into bad circumstances?  If you are not willing to step up and actually take action to demonstrate your valuing of life once such a child is born, why are you asking that even more children be born into such circumstances?  What are you doing to ensure that the consequences of the position you are advocating for others is not the negative that is likely in reality, but closer to the positive that you would like the world to move towards?

And there is another issue that has gotten slight mention here, but not more than slight.  Why is it ok for person A to tell person B what they can and cannot do with their own body?  I see this as a leftover from religion.  Religion tells us that a woman's body is a community breeding and sexual resource.  It is not.  The fact that people have ceded control over their bodies to the larger community in the past is regretable.  I am sorry that this means that men do not have the same level of control in procreation decision making that women do.  Unfortunately, the reproductive organs needed for having children rest solely in the bodies of women.  That's just the way life is.  My body is mine.  Period.  No one has the right to interfere in what I do with my body whether I choose to use or not use my reproductive capabilities, mark it with ink or scarring, pump chemicals into it, or stop it from functioning completely.  My body, my life, my rights, my responsibilities.  Or are you willing to take the responsibility for running my life?  Just a friendly warning, I would think twice before making such an offering.  Smiling 

Now, if people truly do become willing to fully respect life and actually act upon making sure those who are born have a chance (not a guarantee just a good chance) at being fully functioning people who can fully experience what being alive means, then this debate shifts focus.  We are not at that point in the U.S.  I would suspect Canada is the same, even given that they seem to have more sane and functioning community approaches to social problems.  Once a fetus can survive outside the womb (about 6 months) there are rights for that life to consider.  Until that time it is wholly dependant on the womb in which it lives and the responsibility to make the best decisions given the realistic options involved in the situation is up to the owner of that womb.

Well, I think this is long enough.  Please do accept my apologies for that, but this is a complex issue leftover from the days when religion was allowed to rule over the minds and bodies of adherents and is important.  I'm fairly sure there is going to be something I have forgotten to take into account as whole books can be written on this subject!  Thanks for taking the time to think over the issues raised here and Happy Friday.

"I am that I am." - Proof that the writers of the bible were beyond stoned.


SmallChristian
SmallChristian's picture
Posts: 87
Joined: 2007-03-21
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift wrote:I just

JillSwift wrote:

I just explained that. The embryo can not suffer now, but if allowed to be come an unwanted child it will then suffer. Which is moral?

Well ya got me right there.  Although the unwanted child might triumph!  Probabilty is low I can expect.  This issue is tougher than I once thought.

 

Quote:
As long as it's clear he doesn't want the child. (mind you a great deal of the unwanted children I've dealt with in my line of work were the result of empty promises by the father, followed by abandonment.)

I believe you on this one, as seen on plenty of talk shows as well.

Quote:
And the mother not wanting the child is certainly a negative circumstance.

One that could be turned around, though.  It's not exactly a stamp of doom. 

 


SmallChristian
SmallChristian's picture
Posts: 87
Joined: 2007-03-21
User is offlineOffline
anniet wrote: What makes

anniet wrote:

 What makes you think she is going to stop her behavior long enough to responsibly carry a child to term?  That is an irrational assumption based in the same type of fantasy land overlaid on the real world that theists use in viewing the world around them.  Of course, I imagine some of you are theists, so this may not bother you.  But I thought the rest of us were here to look at reality without fantasy.

A close friendo f mine gave her baby up for adoption when she was 16 years old (knew her back then) - She did want the child though, and because her mother is so screwed up (a really bad person, who goes to church every sunday) - she gave her child to a rich Jewish couple and is happy that she did.  This same person however had an abortion a couple years ago because she is suffering from PTSD and other issue(mainly because of her abused childhood from her mother).  She also is familiair with post-pardum depression (spelling?) and has told me that while she regrets having the abortion it was the best thing, and I believe her.  There's a lot of pain and suffering a woman must go through during and after pregnancy, even if the pregnancy is wanted.  She told me at the abortion clinic she had to watch anti-abortion videos (mandatory) and she told them it was unfair because she knew what she was doing (did lots of research) and didn't need to watch the vid.  They forced her to watch it anyway and it made her upset, but in the end she still thinks that the abortion was justified.

Quote:

And there is another issue that has gotten slight mention here, but not more than slight.  Why is it ok for person A to tell person B what they can and cannot do with their own body?  I see this as a leftover from religion.  Religion tells us that a woman's body is a community breeding and sexual resource.  It is not.  The fact that people have ceded control over their bodies to the larger community in the past is regretable.  I am sorry that this means that men do not have the same level of control in procreation decision making that women do.  Unfortunately, the reproductive organs needed for having children rest solely in the bodies of women.  That's just the way life is.  My body is mine.  Period.  No one has the right to interfere in what I do with my body whether I choose to use or not use my reproductive capabilities, mark it with ink or scarring, pump chemicals into it, or stop it from functioning completely.  My body, my life, my rights, my responsibilities.  Or are you willing to take the responsibility for running my life?  Just a friendly warning, I would think twice before making such an offering.

Yes please, may I take that responsibility? running my life is just too damn easy... 

I see where you're coming from.

 

Just want to end that I value human life very highly.  I really do think that the majority of new humans have a fighting chance to making it, much more than any other era in our existance.  

Two things are at war in my mind over this abortion issue.

1. I value human life and human life to be very much.

2. I value a woman's right to her own body.

Therefor I have an almost dualistic mindset on this subject.  It's rather disturbing to be aware of this, but I'm not exactly sure how to deal with it just yet.  I can either A: Dismess this hot-button topic and come back to it later or B: Come to grips with all aspects of this topic and find a good answer, at the same time feeling like I'm short changing human life.  It seems immoral for me to agree that a woman can kill her fetus, but it seems immoral fo me to impose she has a child and it makes her and the childs lief far worse than I could imagine.  This is such a difficult issue for me to come to grips with.


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
The way I see things is that

The way I see things is that it is more immoral to have children that you can not care for than it is to abort a fetus. I think that the moral act for women who can't support children is to abort now rather then cause needless suffering later. We should be enraged that their are pregnant woman who will give birth to unwanted children.

I also think it is a terrible idea to make a woman justify her abortions. In reality that would mean that whoever evaluates the justifications would be the one deciding if any abortions happened based off of their pro-choice or pro-forced maternity ideology. The last thing we need is some judge or beaurocrat telling women that they can or can not get an abortion.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
SmallChristian wrote:Well ya

SmallChristian wrote:
Well ya got me right there.  Although the unwanted child might triumph!  Probabilty is low I can expect.  This issue is tougher than I once thought.


I believe you on this one, as seen on plenty of talk shows as well.


One that could be turned around, though.  It's not exactly a stamp of doom. 

There are no absolutes, there are only patterns and probabilities. So far as societal mores goes it is nessesary to allow abortion - and then allow the individuals involved to decide the morality of particular situations.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


theotherguy
theotherguy's picture
Posts: 294
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: But

 

 

But going out and randomly clubbing Seals is immoral. Kicking puppies is immoral. Seals and puppies aren't rational.

 

 

But women (hopefully) aren't asking for an abortion for no good reason, and YES not wanting to have a baby is a good reason, and perhaps the best reason, to get an abortion.

Further, Seals and puppies should have more rights than foetuses. Seals and puppies at least have the desire and will to live, and have experienced life in the outside world. Foetuses cannot be said to have such a will and desire, for they don't have the vaugest notion of what it even means to be alive. Up until the later stages of development, they don't even have the capability to realize that they are dying. There is simply no comparison here.

 

Quote:

The kid.

Then surely you must see the contradiction of what you believe, that eggs deserve human rights and that killing them should be considered murder, and the fact that a child's life is worth more than 100 billion egg cells.

 

Quote:

modern medicine has come a long way. They can determine if the mother or baby will die

[\quote]

They cannot determine with absolute certainty. The point I'm trying to make is that any hypothetical good you place on the saving of the foetus is worthless merely because it is hypothetical. The inverse is also true, that any hypothetical evil we place on the abortion of the foetus is evil (as are the converses of these statements, that saving the foetus would hypothetically be bad, or that aborting it would hyptothetically be good.)

All that matters is the will of the mother and the foetus. Since the foetus has no will, the mother's will reigns supreme.

Quote:

The question would be why does she not have the desire/means to carry out the pregnancy?

 

Have you ever been pregnant? Have you ever given birth? I hear that its not fun. Caring for an unwanted child for the rest of your life is also a real bummer. Sometimes, women want to be able to control when and how they will have children. Its a basic human right.

 

Quote:

What about the baby? It has different DNA from the mother, so wouldn't that make it seperate?

 

I have already established that the "baby" has no will, and is thus worthless. The DNA is utterly unimportant. A human skin cell has human DNA, yet nobody complains when people scratch themselves and kill billions of them.

 

 

[edit]

You know I just realized something, you call it a "potiental person", however, technically a two year old is still developing/growing do they count?

[/edit]

A two year old is "still growing" but a two year old is already a person. A two year old is a "potential adult", but already a person. We could not give the child the same rights as an adult (like say, owning property), but we can at least give him the basic rights of personhood. The two year old has reason, will, desire, the ability to feel pain, emotion, and has memories. He is certainly a person.

A foetus is not even a person. A foetus has no will, desire, ability to feel and comprehend pain, emotion or memories. It is a "potential person." Whereas the two year old is a "potential adult", and does not yet deserve the rights of adulthood, a foetus is a "potential person" and does not yet deserve the rights of personhood.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Couple points, first anniet,

Couple points, first anniet, this isn't just a religious issue

 

http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html

 

Are there any atheists agains abortion?

 

RatDog wrote:

I personal find this less moral then abortion because dogs in my opinion are more capable of suffering then fetuses.  To answer your question I think that not wanting a fetus is adequate reason for an abortion.

 

There are plenty of ways to kill people without them suffering, so I think the whole question of unwanted children who are already born stands.

 

anniet wrote:

Now, if people truly do become willing to fully respect life and actually act upon making sure those who are born have a chance (not a guarantee just a good chance) at being fully functioning people who can fully experience what being alive means

 

Probability of realizing what being alive means when you're dead =0%

 

 

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
theotherguy wrote: Then

theotherguy wrote:

 


Then surely you must see the contradiction of what you believe, that eggs deserve human rights and that killing them should be considered murder, and the fact that a child's life is worth more than 100 billion egg cells.

 

 

No, the egg cells aren't in the womb and ergo can't become human. The child however is already alive. This is a rather lousy thought experiment.

 

theotherguy wrote:

Have you ever been pregnant? Have you ever given birth? I hear that its not fun. Caring for an unwanted child for the rest of your life is also a real bummer. Sometimes, women want to be able to control when and how they will have children. Its a basic human right.

 

 

 

No, I've never been pregnant, I offered another suggestion as to how a woman can control how they will have children.

 

 

 

theotherguy wrote:

I have already established that the "baby" has no will, and is thus worthless. The DNA is utterly unimportant. A human skin cell has human DNA, yet nobody complains when people scratch themselves and kill billions of them.

 

What if I wanted to get rid of ALL of your cells? I mean they're just cells right? Or maybe just all your heart cells?

 

 

theotherguy wrote:

A two year old is "still growing" but a two year old is already a person. A two year old is a "potential adult", but already a person. We could not give the child the same rights as an adult (like say, owning property), but we can at least give him the basic rights of personhood. The two year old has reason, will, desire, the ability to feel pain, emotion, and has memories. He is certainly a person.

A foetus is not even a person. A foetus has no will, desire, ability to feel and comprehend pain, emotion or memories. It is a "potential person." Whereas the two year old is a "potential adult", and does not yet deserve the rights of adulthood, a foetus is a "potential person" and does not yet deserve the rights of personhood.

 

Yeah but isn't it unethical to interfere with the kid becoming an adult?