Arguments in favour of abortion?

Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Arguments in favour of abortion?

I've notice the abortion threads here are against the anti-abortion stance.

 

But what are the arguments FOR abortion?

 

For example

 

I've heard the woman's right to body, but WHY does that override the fetus' development? And why when she knew she could get pregnant when she engaged in the activity? [neglecting rape here]

 

 

 

 


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2406
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Opinion

 

     

       I was very uncomfortable in 1971 when the  Roe vs. Wade decision was handed down. I was 16 years old at  the time and living in the State of Maine. I knew that the U.S. congress had  500 + members  and 99% were male and I wondered how I would feel if the congress was 99% female and were deciding which men could be allowed to reproduce.

       I want to ask all other men on this site what they think if congress gets to decide if you have children or not.

       Except Vastet  who hasn't reported back from Maury Povich & 3 paternity tests yet.

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:But what

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
But what are the arguments FOR abortion?

...

I've heard the woman's right to body, but WHY does that override the fetus' development? And why when she knew she could get pregnant when she engaged in the activity? [neglecting rape here]

Arguments for or against abortion are different than arguments for or against getting pregnant. Arguments for or against abortion should assume the woman is already pregnant, and proceed from that premise.

A fetus has no rights. Rights are something we negotiate between people, i.e. minds. Fetuses have no minds, are not people, and hence have no rights. A fetus is developing into a person but is not a person. Of course there are somewhat arbitrary lines drawn around personhood, but if we're talking about a fetus that clearly does not have a mind, then the argument is obvious: The fetus is a growth on the woman's body. She has the right to remove it. The end.

If you want to push the case into greyer and more murky territory, then the argument becomes, When does a developing human become a 'person'? But outside of that murky territory, when the fetus is still without a brain capable of supporting a mind, then the right to abortion is quite clear. UNLESSS you assume the existence of a non-physical mind, i.e. a soul. And in that case, it's just another case of supernaturalism vs. naturalism.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Nikolaj
Superfan
Nikolaj's picture
Posts: 503
Joined: 2008-04-27
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: I've

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
I've heard the woman's right to body, but WHY does that override the fetus' development? And why when she knew she could get pregnant when she engaged in the activity? [neglecting rape here]

Firstly: what Natural said.

Secondly, you don't have to like abortion to accept it. I don't much like the idea of abortion, because I like people, and I like new born children especially, so I think on a personal level that another human in the world shouldn't be considered a bad thing.

But personal feelings on my part are pretty irrelevant in this instance. There are lots of things I don't much like, that I still accept as part of being human: I don't like irresponsability, but everyone, including myself are irresponsible at times, and I have to accept that it happens, and then take it from there.

I don't much like greed and envy, but they too are part of being human, and I succomb to both at times as well.

The argument FOR abortion that I use is that the alternative would be much much worse.

If you can sell me on the idea that this need not be the case then you'll have shot down the main argument I have for abortion.

 

And so I'll just ask you this Alison: do you think abortion ought to be illegal? If so, then what do you think the punishment should be, and who should be punished; the woman, the man, the doctor, or all three?

If it were illegal, do you believe that would put and end to abortion, or are you willing to assume that illegal clinics and the old coathanger would have a comeback?

What would you think of a society where such things took place, and what measures would you implement to deter such practices if you didn't want it in society?

 

Or do you pressume it possible that I society could exist where people would only ever get pregnant when they wanted to, and if so, please descripe how such a society would work.

 

Or do you accept a society where unwanted pregnacies are always brought to term, with possible bad outcomes for unready parents and their children, not to mention further strain on global resources as population grows? If so, please defend this stance to me.

 

On a final note: here in Denmark where I live, abortion is legal, sex is socially acceptable, both outside of marriage, among teens, and as one night stands. Contraseption is also socially accepted, and part of almost all Danes' sex-lives.

Abortion is still not considered a casual and simple decision by most people here. No girl I know wants to have an abortion, and most people, myself included, find the idea a very serious and emotionally uncomfortable last resort.

Luckily, since contraseption is so common, unwanted pregnancy is pretty rare, so when it does happen to an unfortunate young couple abortion may be a common choice for many, but even so, that still makes it pretty rare.

 

I suggest you hold on to your strong emotional opposition to abortion, and you are even welcome to tell other people of your thoughts on the matter. I know I do. Perhaps you can have an influence for good among your peers, but only if you make an honest attempt at understanding them and putting yourself in their shoes. Harsh judgement of their actions will only serve to alienate them, and rightly so if you ask me. YOU may not want to have sex, but then, YOU'RE not the one that's pregnant either.

 

MY view on abortion: I use contraseption every time I have sex, and have always done so. So whatever pregnancy I might cause right now will be unwanted, or at least accidental. But I'm 28 now and not in any way afraid of having children, so if I made a girl pregnant today, I would probably personally want the pregnancy brought to term, and I would make that position clear, but I'd certainly let the woman involved have her say also. When I was 18 I felt differently, and that was a good thing too, because I wouldn't have made a good father back then. But then again, because I've always used contraseption and been responsible, that is now a moot point anyway.

 

What I'm trying to say is, abortion is an option. It may not be the prettiest option, nor the most emotionally satisfying, but removing that option cannot be a positive influence on society. And, what with coathangers and backroom clinics, removing that option is probably not even possible, however much legislation you throw at it.

But what you CAN do is stear society in a direction where that option is hardly ever, if ever, used, and then that just leaves the question of how best to do that.

 

One could try to stear society in a direction where everybody is as scared of sex as you. I can only say, good luck with that, if that's what you want to do. Sex has been thoroughly deamonized in many many human societies for thousands of years, and yet, even in the American bible belt there are still lots and lots of unwanted pregnancies.

Alot more than here in Denmark by the way, where sex is not deamonized, and everybody fucks like rabits.

Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
This isn't a topic for my

This isn't a topic for my arguments against legalizing/performing abortions, it's for people to present arguments FOR legalizing/performing abortions.

 

 

 

 


Nikolaj
Superfan
Nikolaj's picture
Posts: 503
Joined: 2008-04-27
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: This

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
This isn't a topic for my arguments against legalizing/performing abortions, it's for people to present arguments FOR legalizing/performing abortions.

And I did:

I wrote:
The argument FOR abortion that I use is that the alternative would be much much worse.

If you can sell me on the idea that this need not be the case then you'll have shot down the main argument I have for abortion.

Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin


peppermint
Superfan
peppermint's picture
Posts: 539
Joined: 2006-08-14
User is offlineOffline
I can't argue for abortion

I can't argue for abortion though, because every PRO Abortion argument I've heard or can think of gets bitchslapped in my mind with a counterexample.

*Our world is far more complex than the rigid structure we want to assign to it, and we will probably never fully understand it.*

"Those believers who are sophisticated enough to understand the paradox have found exciting ways to bend logic into pretzel shapes in order to defend the indefensible." - Hamby


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
It's spelled "favor."Oh,

It's spelled "favor."

Oh, yeah... and how many times do I have to say it?  Your argument wants to take away rights.  You have the burden of proof.  You haven't met 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


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: I've

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

 

I've heard the woman's right to body, but WHY does that override the fetus' development? And why when she knew she could get pregnant when she engaged in the activity? [neglecting rape here]

 

 

 

 

 


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
Because no one should be

Because no one should be raised in a place that is either neglectful or cannot support them.

 

Orphanages are overflowing. No one adopts. There are already too many unwanted kids, that grow up in the system never having parents.

 

I myself only had a mom, who worked as a nurse. I never saw her in my early childhood, but for maybe an hour or so of the day when she was exhausted.

 

And she CARED about me. How much worse would it have been if I was simply an unwanted cost?

 

Would you want to inflict more unwanted children on the world, to suffer in homes where they were being mentally abused by the sheer fact of being unneeded drains on people that can't afford or support them?

 

 

It's not a pretty issue, but it is one nonetheless. Have you ever read A Modest Proposal?

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
For the record Hamby, I'm

For the record Hamby, I'm reasonably sure I know your answers to the questions, I just want to get others.

 

 

 

ClockCat wrote:

Have you ever read A Modest Proposal?

 

No. Summary?

 

 

 


 

 

 

 


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
peppermint wrote:I can't

peppermint wrote:

I can't argue for abortion though, because every PRO Abortion argument I've heard or can think of gets bitchslapped in my mind with a counterexample.

How is getting an abortion any different than getting a tumor removed?

Just imagine there's a religious group that objects to people getting tumors removed. They claim, "But those cells are human cells! They deserve life too, just as much as any adult! You have no right to have a tumor removed from your own body!" They have picket signs with slogans like "Life begins at metastasis!"

Sounds stupid, right? That's the same thing as people who protest against abortion.

And how dare you scratch your nose! Doncha know you're killing hundreds of human cells every time you scratch your nose? Those cells could conceivably be turned into clones. Therefore scratching your nose is the equivalent of murder!

Could you imagine someone trying to pass laws saying you can't scratch your nose?

If you don't see how these scenarios are equivalent, ask yourself Precisely what makes them different? Be especially careful to clearly define terms like 'life', 'potential', 'innocent', 'kill', 'baby', etc.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:It's

Hambydammit wrote:
It's spelled "favor."
Favour...  Are you being serious?

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."


Nikolaj
Superfan
Nikolaj's picture
Posts: 503
Joined: 2008-04-27
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:Hambydammit

Thomathy wrote:

Hambydammit wrote:
It's spelled "favor."
Favour...  Are you being serious?

Oh Thomathy, you know those Americans with their favors and their colors and there anchors... no wait...

 

As the real foreigner in this group, perhaps I can clear this up:

Just in case somebody doesn't actually know (I suspect both Hamby and Thomathy know the difference and are just being tongue-in-cheek) but favour (and colour) is the correct British spelling (and Canadian, I pressume), while favor and color is the correct American spelling.

Something I've learned because English is not my first language anyway, so at University we learn both British and American spelling and pronunciation. There's the typical tin/can and lift/elevator things, and the different pronunciations of "either" and "can't", but there are also many spelling differences that I'm not sure all Americans and Brits are aware of.

Sometimes being the non-native speaker gives you more knowlegde than the natives, much like Craig Ferguson has discovered he knows more U.S geography and History than some of his fellow Americans, because he actually had to take a test to become a citizen.

 

Whoops, sorry, the language-nerd in me took over for a moment there. Back to the topic at hand: abortion.

Carry on everyone.

Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
I'm american and I spell is

I'm american and I spell is favour(and colour, etc).

 

Concerning abortion: Mitigating reasons for abortion are cases that have the mother's health and/or the fetus' health to be in danger if the pregnancy is carried out.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
If you asked Margaret Sanger

If you asked Margaret Sanger she'd probably say that it can help reduce the population of less favored races, or less favoured races.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
For the record, yes, I was

For the record, yes, I was being tongue in cheek about "favour."  I inadvertently started a train-wreck derail a few months ago when I was knee deep in a bunch of books by British authors and absentmindedly wrote something about colours instead of colors.

For most of the last decade, I've had a number of British-isms that have crept into my speech and writing.  It comes from watching mostly British comedies and reading mostly books by British authors... but hey, that's where the good comedy and science is these days.

 

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

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


Nikolaj
Superfan
Nikolaj's picture
Posts: 503
Joined: 2008-04-27
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:For the

Hambydammit wrote:

For the record, yes, I was being tongue in cheek about "favour."  I inadvertently started a train-wreck derail a few months ago when I was knee deep in a bunch of books by British authors and absentmindedly wrote something about colours instead of colors.

For most of the last decade, I've had a number of British-isms that have crept into my speech and writing.  It comes from watching mostly British comedies and reading mostly books by British authors... but hey, that's where the good comedy and science is these days.

 

 

Iain Banks Hamby! Iain Banks. I think you'll love him, if you're not familiar with him allready.

 

Anyway, enough derailing...

Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
hmmm another thing I just

hmmm another thing I just thought of:

 

People say that the fetus isn't human ergo does not get human rights. My question would be WHEN then does it get rights?

The second trimester? When it's birthed?

 

 

I ask because the most decent argument I've seen is that abortions should only be allowed before I think the second tri-mester.

 

 

 

 

 


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
Weird that they say that. I

Weird that they say that. I imagine it'd be rather difficult for a human to be pregnant with something that wasn't human. I think they don't consider it a person, and therefore doesn't get rights. But it's most certainly human.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
I know you don't want my

I know you don't want my opinions, but I'm giving them anyway.  The only argument that makes any sense is that rights begin at birth.  You've glossed over this argument everytime I've made it, but I don't think you have really given thought to the pandora's box you'd open up if you called a fetus at any stage of gestation a human with rights.

Humans who are incapable of expressing their own desires in legal situations are legally required to have guardians ad litum to speak for them.  Are you really prepared to subject women to legal battles over things like whether or not they're doing their yoga too strenuously in the third trimester?  Are you prepared for thousands of women to be brought up on involuntary manslaughter charges because the spontaneous abortion in the third trimester might have been caused by that ill-advised mountain hike that turned out to be too strenuous for a pregnant woman?

What if research shows that a particular diet is the most healthy for fetuses?  Are you ready for that to be legally enforced on women?

Think for a few minutes about all the charges that can be brought against someone, and all the things someone can sue for.  Do you comprehend that people will sue pregnant women on behalf of their embryos?

Natural has also made some very good points.  The emotional bias you feel towards a blastocyst is just that -- emotional bias.  It's not genetically different than the placenta or bone cancer.  It's a lump of cells.  A little later it's a lump of cells with the beginnings of what might become organs.  A little later it's a vaguely primate-like thing that fits all the scientific criteria of a parasite.

I still don't get why you aren't comprehending the emptiness of the "potential" argument.  There are 7 billion people on the planet.  Some are good people, some are bad.  Some are rich, and some live in abject poverty.  Hitler sucked and Einstein was awesome.  Every sperm in the world could be a unique special snowflake of a person, and there's no magic that happens when they join with an egg.  If this sperm and egg don't turn into a person, so what?  There are trillions more unique special snowflakes of people swimming around in testicles all over the world.  So what if you didn't exist?  You surely wouldn't care, since... well.. you wouldn't be around to not care.

Here's something you haven't considered, or if you have, you haven't adequately addressed:  The blastocyst isn't losing anything by being scraped out of a uterus.  It has no feelings or wants or desires.  It offends YOU that someone would scrape their uterus, but the cells themselves don't have the capacity to be harmed or offended in any way that is meaningful to a human.  There is literally no difference between removing a cancerous tumor and an undeveloped human, in terms of the harm done... both are lumps of cells that do not constitute a human being, and both are dying in the process.

I know, you've seen pictures of mutilated fetuses from the third trimester, and they look a lot like dead babies, and that's really horrible.  Yeah, a few weeks before they're born, most fetuses could survive (though likely they will need medical intervention) outside of the womb.  Personally, I still don't see the need to have a legal conniption fit over this observation, but I understand why most people want to ban third trimester abortions.  Like I've said, I think it's a fair concession so that people like you don't have to cry over dead babies, and if that's what it takes to keep you from imposing your personal morals on everybody else, so be 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


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:People

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

People say that the fetus isn't human ergo does not get human rights. My question would be WHEN then does it get rights?

That is bad misusage of words. Of course they are human from the very beginning. They are just not 'persons'. Human just means your genetic inheritance. Being a person is more about the quality of your mind, consciousness, ability to make choices, etc. Theoretically, you don't have to be human to be a person. Similarly, not all human tissue is a person.

Quote:
The second trimester? When it's birthed?

Again, that's shifting the debate from abortion to the significant features of personhood. It's a different debate.

Currently, the most common medical/legal definition of the person boundary is around the second trimester. I think the main ethical concern is the ability to cause suffering, due to its conscious awareness of pain.

Personally, I don't think there is as yet a clear boundary. There's a grey area.

However, if you go back to the question of abortion itself, and you consider an early fetus, or even a clump of embryonic cells, then there is no fuzziness. These are clearly not people (they cannot suffer, for instance), and it is clear that abortion is an ethical option.

That's why it's so important to realize that they are two separate questions: Is abortion ethical?, and When does a fetus become a person? The answer to the first question is a clear Yes. The answer to the second is not so clear, although we have decent working definitions, based on medical, legal, and ethical ideas.

Personally, I would like to see Great Apes, such as chimpanzees and gorillas given the status of a limited form of personhood, for the purposes of protecting their 'rights' against poaching and mistreatment by zoos and animal trainers. This is a legal question, and one that would need to be debated to make the distinctions clear. All I'm saying is that the question of personhood is different than the question of abortion.

(Another example of personhood I'd like to see changed is that I don't think corporations should be considered 'persons' under legal definitions, although they are in most Western countries.)

Quote:
I ask because the most decent argument I've seen is that abortions should only be allowed before I think the second tri-mester.

I think that's the most common boundary used in various countries. It is in Canada, for instance.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Natural, you raise some

 Natural, you raise some very good points, particularly with limited rights for other animals.  At this point, I need to ask Pineapple a question, though... Pineapple, do you believe humans are special?  In other words, do you think humans are better than other animals in any real way?

The reason I ask is this:  Humans are ok with causing pain when the result is worth it.  Let's not pretend that even the most humane slaughter houses don't cause pain to fully sentient beings, ok?  Without question, an adult cow can experience a more profound sense of fear than any fetus, regardless of which trimester it is in.  If you've never seen a slaughter house, let me just tell you, you're fooling yourself if you think cows and pigs don't feel fear when they're about to be killed.  They do.  Then, they feel pain.  It doesn't last for long, but I guarantee they feel pain.

Yesterday, I found a hole in a baseboard in my house, and figured out that roaches have been coming into my house through that spot, so I got my bug spray and I sprayed it as far into the hole as I could, and all around the baseboard.  Within an hour, there were roaches belly up and wriggling their legs as they slowly died for no other reason than I wanted them dead because I don't like them.

We humans are ok with inflicting pain.  We do it all the time.  We do it to other humans, too.  Let's not be disingenuous about this.  At least once a week, I tell one of my employees to do something that will cause them pain -- because I'd rather they do it than me, and I'm the boss.  Lots of our modern conveniences in life come at the expense of pain.  Pain happens.

With all that in mind, we can return to the second and third trimester argument and ask the question:  Is the fact that a fetus can feel pain enough of an argument in and of itself to warrant banning abortions in the second or even third trimester?  Are we applying a species-centric bias to the logic we normally use?

Before you jump to a conclusion, consider that we locked up Michael Vick for inflicting undue pain on animals, but we don't even consider charges for someone who humanely puts an animal down.  They do it every day at the animal shelters.  If nobody adopts an animal within a certain time, they kill it, even if it's perfectly healthy.  You see... the dog and cat population is out of control, and a certain amount of killing is necessary.  Oh, and yes... they do abortions on dogs and cats who come in pregnant.  Pineapple, do you object to these abortions because it's ending the potential of a fetus to become a dog or cat?

 

 

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

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


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote:It is in

natural wrote:
It is in Canada, for instance.
Are you certain?  Because I'm fairly sure that there aren't any laws regarding abortion in Canada.


 

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."


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:Pineapple,

Hambydammit wrote:

Pineapple, do you object to these abortions because it's ending the potential of a fetus to become a dog or cat?

Heh. I could just imagine some religious groups campaigning, "We are against abortions of any kind, even cats and dogs. But of course, there's an animal population problem, so once those puppies are born, we should put them to sleep."

The puppy's like, "Hello, world! Uhhh.... Goodbye, world!"

But seriously, this is not so different to what is actually happening with anti-abortionists. "We are 'pro' life, so all babies must be born! But once they are born, if they're not wanted, just toss 'em in an orphanage. And heck no! I'm not adopting no mongrel kid from no orphanage!"

I'm pro quality-of-life, and therefore supportive of both abortion and medically assisted suicide. If we can't give them a good life, better not bring 'em in in the first place. And if someone is suffering so much they want to die, who are we to put up any road blocks?

Life itself is not sacred. Life can seriously suck. It's more important to improve our quality of life, even if that means ending or preventing a life, than to preserve all life at all costs.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:natural

Thomathy wrote:

natural wrote:
It is in Canada, for instance.
Are you certain?  Because I'm fairly sure that there aren't any laws regarding abortion in Canada.

I wasn't aware there was no law about abortion. I was going by what I'd heard about the state of practice from a nurse. It is generally not available to have a third-term abortion in Canada, except in special cases. In other words, the consensus is that the second term is the limit, even if this is not specified by law. Thus it's more of an ethical definition than a legal one.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
This is a topic for me to

This is a topic for me to get a better perspective of the arguments for abortion, not for my arguments against it.

 

I'm reasonably sure I know most of the arguments for abortion, I just wanted to see if there were any I was missing, or any from another angle.

 

 

 

 


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Well in Canada

The fetus does not have rights until it is born and fully outside of the woman's body (R. vs Sullivian Canadian court case back in 1991). With that said third term abortions cannot be done in Canada unless there is a significate health risk to the mother or the child will not survive child birth.

My personal opinion is that abortion is a very personal choice, and is both the moral and conscious decision of the woman making the decision to have an abortion, and not a decision of the state.

My reasons for allowing legal abortions ranges from medical reasons of course, to the reality that some people simply do not want to be pregnant and they have the right to terminate it, however with that said they should also be practicing safe sex. That may not always be possible due to financial/educational backgrounds (this really shouldn't be the case in Canada but alas I have met some really daft women/men regarding sex). Although condoms are widely available in Canada, they still can break (I have had over the years probably about 5 or 6 condoms break, which really isn't that bad considering how many I have used), which at this point even though the condoms were used to prevent pregnancy they did fail (thankfully no pregnancy). Fianancial reasons are another reason for terminating a pregancy.  Some people say that women can give the baby to adoption, there are pros and cons for that as well (for another topic really). The woman may not be able to emotionally deal with giving up a baby to be adopted, or being able to go through the entire pregnancy.


Nikolaj
Superfan
Nikolaj's picture
Posts: 503
Joined: 2008-04-27
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote: Some

latincanuck wrote:
Some people say that women can give the baby to adoption, there are pros and cons for that as well (for another topic really). The woman may not be able to emotionally deal with giving up a baby to be adopted, or being able to go through the entire pregnancy.

...not to mention that there also has to be someone willing to adobt the child, which is in itself a huge problem.

Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5905
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:This is

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

This is a topic for me to get a better perspective of the arguments for abortion, not for my arguments against it.

I'm reasonably sure I know most of the arguments for abortion, I just wanted to see if there were any I was missing, or any from another angle.

I doubt if there are any positive arguments for abortion, in the sense you seem to be talking about.

I think it is only considered when judged to be the option with the least overall harmful outcome to all concerned, as has already been described by most of the people responding here. It is typically going to be a matter with some significant degree of subjective value judgement.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
Nikolaj wrote:latincanuck

Nikolaj wrote:

latincanuck wrote:
Some people say that women can give the baby to adoption, there are pros and cons for that as well (for another topic really). The woman may not be able to emotionally deal with giving up a baby to be adopted, or being able to go through the entire pregnancy.

...not to mention that there also has to be someone willing to adobt the child, which is in itself a huge problem.

 

Many are willing, not all are able.


geirj
geirj's picture
Posts: 719
Joined: 2007-06-19
User is offlineOffline
And the adoption system in

And the adoption system in the United States is ridiculously complicated for the most part.

 

You can argue for and against abortion all you want. But both sides can agree that it would be better if abortions weren't needed. So it's interesting to note that the same people who are anti-abortion are also the ones who prefer abstinence-only sex education - which we of course know is horribly unrealistic. The solution for preventing most unwanted pregnancies is better sex education that begins earlier.

Nobody I know was brainwashed into being an atheist.

Why Believe?


crazymonkie
Silver Member
crazymonkie's picture
Posts: 336
Joined: 2009-03-09
User is offlineOffline
Indeed. Even in the states

Indeed. Even in the states with 'good' adoption systems, the machine is fucking BROKEN. I know, for instance, that when we talk about where most of these kids will end up- assuming we ignore the improbable radical turnaround by the parents of these kids (unwanted or neglected, for my purposes, the results are the same)- they will probably either be in a state-run orphanage or group home.

Now, I'm not that familiar with state-run orphanages, and honestly, they seem relatively rare to me. I've seen enough kids come through group homes, however, to know that NOBODY comes out the better from those places; without legalized abortion, without cheaper access to it, that's where the kids will end up. And they will grow up learning the tricks of the criminal trade from other kids who've probably already done time in juvie, creating a social problem in an ever-widening sphere of space.

And keep in mind- I'm only talking about the *good* states here. The *bad* states, like Texas (where I'm living- but not where I'm from) have rampant abuse and neglect in their state facilities for orphans, kids from abusive or neglectful situations, and people with mental or physical disabilities. There have been a series of stories by the AP recently about a state school for people with mental disabilities in Dallas (I think) where the staff set up these 'fight clubs' between the residents, basically just for fun. There have been other cases of severe abuse, reliable reports of preventable deaths by neglect, and many other problems.

So, please do consider- if the 'pro-life' side wins, this is where they're going. This is their future. Of course abortions are not good; there's no 'pro-abortion' stance- it's an invasive medical procedure, if you take out all the mushy shit about 'souls' and 'life' and all that noise. It's like being pro-apendectomy or something like that. One does not say "All right, abortion! Sweet!" It's a last resort, but, it's important to have it available- any noise about 'abortion as birth control' aside.

As a side note- I'd *really* like to see someone from that group some time. I don't mean someone who had one or two abortions- no, I mean someone who uses abortions *primarily*, even exclusively, as birth control. I'd wager they'd be pretty fucked up people, but I'm just going on my experience and knowledge, so I may be wrong.

OrdinaryClay wrote:
If you don't believe your non-belief then you don't believe and you must not be an atheist.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
The fact is this: Abortions

The fact is this: Abortions happen.

 

They always have, and they always will.

 

 

Making it illegal would do nothing but put the women who would attempt it by themselves at a dangerous risk.

 

 

It would not be "stopping" abortions, it would simply be saying "Now you can't go to a clinic for it, you have to go into the bathroom with a rusty coat hanger."

 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


crazymonkie
Silver Member
crazymonkie's picture
Posts: 336
Joined: 2009-03-09
User is offlineOffline
*nods*We need to return to

*nods*

We need to return to the more ancient view that it was more or less woman's perogative to deal with children as she saw fit. Minus the horrendously sexist separation of labor this implies, of course.

OrdinaryClay wrote:
If you don't believe your non-belief then you don't believe and you must not be an atheist.


mrjonno
Posts: 726
Joined: 2007-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Rights of the fetus boring,

Rights of the fetus boring, not a fetus don't care

Rights of a woman, not a woman so don't care

Pisses god of, god don't exist don't care

 

Unwanted kids generally get paid for out of my taxes as their parents (or more normally their parent) cant cope with them, grow up to be far more likely to become unemployed and criminals. These criminals steal from my house and generally try to kill me. This I DO care greatly about.

Actually I'm not some right wing nutter and do care about other people to some extent beyond myself  (there is some parody in the above statements) but it amazes me why people never use economic arguments in favour of abortion. Unwanted kids make everyone lives a misery including themselves.

And no this isnt an argument to bump off old people either , I'm very much against euthanasia as it damages society but just as importantly could have unforseen economic consquences