Abortion

[snivelingchild]

(there's a difference between a few cells and a foetus imho)

I agree, and I do think there is alot of importance of how far along the development is. Of course we've all probably heard the pro-life propaganda about all these almost fully developed babies being aborted and whatnot, when the truth is that (in the US anyway) doctors won't even perform an abortion past the first trimester unless there is a medical reason (the mother could not survive a birth, etc.). But beyond that, I think in the case of abortion, a mother should always make it a point to have it done as early as possible after she is sure of her choice. Personally, I think responsibly it should be done within the first two months, of course there are cases where the woman does not know she is pregnant for a while. Though it is a very hard decision to make for some, if it takes that long for her to decide whether or not she wants a child, is she really ready? I don't mean to be attacking with that statement at all. It's just, if it took me more than a couple of weeks of serious thought to decide, I wouldn't think I could take care a child. Just my personal perspective.

[snivelingchild]

I completely understand your point, John. It makes me sad when I see people give so much attention to this issue, but so many other points of human exploitation, animal exploitation, murder, slaughter, slavery, genocide, war, etc. go on mostly ignored.

[snivelingchild]

I don't mean to sound harsh here..but if a woman has sex , surely she can conclude that a pregnancy could happen? maybe a girl kept in the dark; might not realise it..but grown women do know that. I know there are exceptions..but far and few between surely.

I understand your point, but this does completely ignore the fact that sexually is a very important part of human nature. I mean, should a fertile heterosexual couple that decides no to have children have to have lives without the joy of sex because no matter what form of birth control they choose (if in fact it is available to them) has a slight chance of not working. Of course, the chances for each very quite a bit. The chance of a teenage couple getting pregnant while attempting to "pull out" before anything "happens" is much larger than the slight chance of a couple where one has had voluntary sterilization, but this is where the problem lies. Usually when one gets pregnant, it is because not enough or not the right kinds of birth control was used. Though mostly everyone is aware that there is a chance that sex can lead to pregnancy, details of birth control aren't known nearly as well as they should be.

For example, almost every teenager in above pverty areas knows that condoms can break or otherwise not work, but I really think they are not fully aware that the chances aren't one in a million, as can be seen by the fact that it is the most commonly used form of birth control among them. I've seen instances of this myself. They aren't confronted with the facts very much, and think there is probably <1% chance anything will go wrong. If they were more educated and had reasonable access, they would use more reliable forms of birth control, cutting down on unexpected pregnancies, though there will always be a chance that they will fail.

The way I see it, you can't just say that unplanned pregnancy = irresponsability. And sexuality is a very healthy natural part of life, and cannot be ignored because there may be a slight chance (with proper birth control) that one may become pregnant, though there is much you can say about heightening our level of awareness to make birth control use more responsible itself.

[greenworlds]

The idea of a child being its mother's punishment for her irresponsible sexual behavior really bothers me. Not just from the mother's perspective, but also (and especially!) from the child's perspective..

I agree, also if the fathers are suprized or shocked by impregnanting a mother..then maybe a question mark should hang above their heads..if they are responsible enough to be parents are thet responible enough to have sexual intercourse in the first place?

[greenworlds]

[QUOTE=snivelingchild]I understand your point, but this does completely ignore the fact that sexually is a very important part of human nature. I mean, should a fertile heterosexual couple that decides no to have children have to have lives without the joy of sex because no matter what form of birth control they choose (if in fact it is available to them).


Well we have to be carefull not to go against the laws of nature too much, thats when problems start.It could be agrued ..what gives anyone the right to want sex and not children, that in itself encourages people to have different sexual partners, thus the spread sexually transmitted diseases etc.

Also if a couple want to experinences the joys of sex, is the joy of bringing a child into the world such a terrible thing? Remember nature made us, not us nature.

[cwih57]

The idea of having as many children as nature or god gives you, is the idea behind the quiverfull movement, but this is simply not healthy or sustainable on a large level, have that number of offsping, with most or all surviving to adulthood is not only bad for the enviroment but bad for our social systems as well. Unless we want to go back to the "natural" way of having a large percentage of offspring die before adulthood, Birth control and abortion are effective tools to manage a population that is already reaching critical levels.

[snivelingchild]

what gives anyone the right to want sex and not children, that in itself encourages people to have different sexual partners, thus the spread sexually transmitted diseases etc.

Many, many people do not feel the need or want to parent, and I hardly think that is the reason for sexual promiscuity and irresponsible sexual habits. Parenting just isn't for everyone, and I think a person should be able to make that decision without having to give up their sexuality.

Some people just have certain ways they want to live their lives and children just may not fit in, or at least not until a specific time. If someone does not want to have children until their late twenties or maybe their thirties, should they also delay themselves sex, even with a life partner until that time? That is what I think is so wonderful about birth control, and we should be putting all our resources towards helping the use of such birth control be more responsible and decrease the instances of unwanted pregnancies, so few women will ever have to come to the decision of whether or not to keep the child.

I disagree that if one is not responsible enough to have children then they are not responsible enough to have sexual intercourse. Perhaps if they are not responsible enough to make the decision of having a child, they are not responsible enough to have intercourse. Plus, responsibility is not the only factor that makes one not want to have children. People's reasons vary quite a bit.

[Hasha]

I agree, also if the fathers are suprized or shocked by impregnanting a mother..then maybe a question mark should hang above their heads..if they are responsible enough to be parents are thet responible enough to have sexual intercourse in the first place?

I suppose you can ask whether someone who isn't responsible enough to be a parent is responsible enough to have sex. I, on the other hand, ask whether someone who isn't responsible enough to practice safe sex is responsible enough to be a parent. Basically, I think that no child should be its parents' punishment, obstacle on their way, or anything of the sort. You may well forget about the parents if you want. But think about that child.

And, yes, I know that the next point is that it's better to be a punishment and an obstacle than dead. I don't agree. I think it's a far greater problem for a two-year child not to be loved than for a two-month old fetus to be killed.

[Seaside]

Posted by Geoff:
Buddhism also offers definite and positive instructions with regard to the manner in which humans should develop universal loving kindness towards all living things that exist in the universe, whether in close proximity or at a distance, seen or unseen, large or small, fierce or timid. Even those seeking to come into existence [ sambhavesã ] like foetal bodies of unborn babies or those in the stage of eggs are encompassed within this range of universal loving kindness or mettà in Buddhism. It specifies this attitude thus declaring ' May all beings be well and happy' [ Sabbe sattà bhavantu sukhitattà ].

I'm on the fence like DoveInGreyClothing. I could never have an abortion, but I'm not sure I want to interfere with other people's ability to make this decision. But I thought that was a beautiful posting, Geoff. :)

[snivelingchild]

I could never have an abortion, but I'm not sure I want to interfere with other people's ability to make this decision.

If you are unsure of the purely legal aspect of the situation, let me encourage you to think of the fact that legalized abortion allows women to have the procedure done in a clean, safe manner. If it were illegal, women would either be forced into a life they don't like, be forced to bond with a child right before and right after it is born, and then have it taken away, a child would be possibly forced into a life where they are not taken care of in many ways, or a woman would have an abortion with what was available to her, in a very dangerous manner.

Sorry, I wish I had something more uplifting to end that post with. Rather dreary, eh?

[Geoff]

a child would be possibly forced into a life where they are not taken care of in many ways, or a woman would have an abortion with what was available to her, in a very dangerous manner. Sorry, I wish I had something more uplifting to end that post with. Rather dreary, eh?

OR the child could grow to be another Beethoven or influential proponent of animal rights or maybe just another decent human being.
How about thinking of the best case scenario instead of the worst? :)

[snivelingchild]

Sorry, I meant to raise the point that from a legal standpoint, women would still abort fetuses, but in much worse ways; and the point that you are forcing women and men into lives they do not want. I should have also made it clearer that I think a child whose mother was forced to have him/her would be more likely not to be fully embraced by thier parents.

[Seaside]

Posted by snivelingchild:
If you are unsure of the purely legal aspect of the situation

Oh, no, I only meant that although I would not want an abortion, I'm not comfortable with trying to stop others. I wish people wouldn't do it, but I realize that many people feel that they must, and in that case it should be kept safe.

[greenworlds]

[QUOTE=Hasha]I suppose you can ask whether someone who isn't responsible enough to be a parent is responsible enough to have sex. I, on the other hand, ask whether someone who isn't responsible enough to practice safe sex is responsible enough to be a parent. Basically, I think that no child should be its parents' punishment, obstacle on their way, or anything of the sort. You may well forget about the parents if you want. But think about that child.

I not sure the sexuals pleasures of life are so much more important than human life itself, I think people should to seen a valuable..( Well vegans anyway..lesser value going down the food chain), if we consider how many aborted people there have been already and the rest to come, we will be talking about billions of people soon, It makes me wonder how different life would be if people in general were more caring , responsible, how different things could be. If a woman becomes pregnant " unexpectedly" what about fostering the child to responsible parents who maybe can't have children

[snivelingchild]

If a woman becomes pregnant " unexpectedly" what about fostering the child to responsible parents who maybe can't have children

That would be a fine option if every child in the adoption system already had a loving suitable home to live in and there were millions more where waiting, and the world's resources could support so much more life on such a massive scale. If these things could all be miraculously available, then you would still be ignoring the woman who has to go through nine months of carrying a child she doesn't want and goes through childbirth. That is a huge takeover of someone's life. I know you might say that a "disruption" in somone's life is not as bad as ending it, but in this case, it IS.

There is a woman with a fully developed life, with life plans, with feeling and seriously developed emotion. Forcing a woman to go through such strenuous things can cause VERY SERIOUS repercussions in her life, and the lives of those around her. Not only that, but it will automatically be known about her becoming pregnant. Ruining a life (as such an act has the potential to do) is a very ethical wrong doing, in my mind, no matter WHAT they may have done in their past. Nothing "justifies" treating a fully developed person as not worthy of consideration. If you do this, YOU ARE PUTTING A FETUS BEFORE A MOTHER. You are saying that a fetus is more important, and that is NOT "equal consideration", as many people wish that a fetus be granted this. It equates to special rights instead of equal rights.

Yes, a fetus dies. Yes, you are ending life, but how much does this unfeeling fetus suffer compared to the mother? This isn't something we like to think about, but this is a case where you are forced to choose between two beings. If a mother would be welcoming a child and wants to appreciate this life, then that is a wonderful thing. When a woman does not want a child, you must choose between the two. To me, a woman has much more value than a fetus.

If you had to choose between yourself and an unfeeling, unthinking animal (if there were such a thing), you would choose yourself, right? Of course there are no such instances I can think of where you would have to, purely in hypotheticals. This in no way merits abuse against them, we all agree, because you do not have to choose. Sometimes you do have to choose. Abortion is one of them.

That's just the way I see it.

[greenworlds]

[QuoteYes, a fetus dies. Yes, you are ending life, but how much does this unfeeling fetus suffer compared to the mother? This isn't something we like to think about, but this is a case where you are forced to choose between two beings. If a mother would be welcoming a child and wants to appreciate this life, then that is a wonderful thing. When a woman does not want a child, you must choose between the two. To me, a woman has much more value than a fetus ]

We should remember that some aborted babies are placed by the mother from a following pregnancy, I'm saying if babies weren't aborted ..I believe the quailty of life in general would be better....we do not know how many potential geniuses have and will be aborted...how has our lives in general been effected by the millions of lives that have been lost to abortion? you might say ..potentially bad people have been aborted as well. I think the good in not aborting out-weighs the bad. I wouldn't like to put a value on human life ..I'd say both parent and baby in the womb were as important as eachother.
I just think abortion at the end of the day in most circumstances is not good. If a women had to have an abortion to save her life through a complicated birth I would have to agree with that, but at the same time ask the question why was it complicated in the first place. If we lived as we should be..not killing animals, not smoking etc...would people be getting birth deformities, early diseases etc. It's like a distractive ballhas been set rolling at one bad thing leads to another, but thet are not really bad in the sense that it should remind us that there are certain things we shouldn't be doing.




If you had to choose between yourself and an unfeeling, unthinking animal (if there were such a thing), you would choose yourself, right?

I agree I don't think there are any unthinking unfeeling animals...humans can be pretty unthinking and unfeeling at times! I'd hope I would make the right choice at the right time in the right circumstances. I's hate to be hanging off a cliff by one hand with a pet dog in the other and have to choose to let the dog drop to it's death to save my life.

[snivelingchild]

I just think abortion at the end of the day in most circumstances is not good.

I would like to hear you expand on that, because I don't really understand why you think so.

I don't think that saying a child might turn out to be a good person or that something good might come out of them is a good reason against abortion. I think all people should have equal consideration despite their intelligence, so why does it matter what type of person they could have been? There are many fully formed people and children who have this potential as well who can be nutured do reach their full potential, and these fetus' could develop into any type of person, depending on how they are raised. If they are raised by parents who weren't ready to become parents, or stuck in a government system until they turn 18 because there weren't places available to them, I don't think they would have a very nurturing childhood. I think there are many better things we can do to improve the world without adding more people. One of the reasons I am morally against having children myself if that humans are wildly overpopulated already, and the earth is running out of resources.

Basically, it seem that to me the good part of not having an abortion is that it adds another life to the world, while doing nothing for the quality of that life or the lives of the parents. I think quality of live for all parties involved is much more important than life itself. What is the point of life if it will not be enjoyed? If a mother thinks that her or the potential child's life will not have much quality of the fetus is born, what is the point of having that life? That is also why some choose to end their life if they are on a declining slope that will not get better, and the pain and misery is greater than whatever joy they might have left.

I would also be interested in what you think of the part where a woman must give her body up for the fetus to grow? That part is what leads me to think that not having an abortion when it is wanted is putting the fetus' needs above the mothers. You say you feel they deserve equal treatment, so does this fit in?

I don't mean to focus so much on you, but you are the only one right now talking about this specific thing. Feel free to not answer of you don't feel you want to. :) Sometimes you just don't want to get into a detailed debate, but I quite enjoy this type of thing time to time. :D Just let me know if you feel uneasy by anything I say.

[Hasha]

we do not know how many potential geniuses have and will be aborted...

And how many geniuses do you think there are among the millions of malnourished people with no access to drinking water, let alone anything else? (Not that I believe that one has to be a genius or otherwise exceptional in order to be worthy of consideration.) I say, worry about those who have been born already and are living in miserable conditions as we speak before you start adding unwanted humans onto this already way, way overpopulated planet that won't be able to sustain us all much longer.

[DianeVegan]

It is amazing to me, that as vegans, we know how many gallons of petroleum/ gallons of water/ pounds of corn or soy or grass/ pounds of pesticides it takes to produce a pound of beef (let alone how much waste in the form of CO2 and manure) but we never talk about the effects of another pound of human being. And when one individual woman, for whatever reasons, decides to do something positive for the planet - yes, positive, just as one less cow would be positive - we suddenly lose all rational thought because it's a HUMAN life. When did we become more important than all the animals we are making extinct? If everyone became vegan it would probably help the world very much, but we are still exceeding our living space. No matter what your views on religion or life, human life should not be considered more precious or entitled than any other.

[Hasha]

My view precisely. Thank you, Dianecrna.

[VeganMan]

For what it's worth, my views on the subject:

A human life is created at the moment of conception.
An abortion ends such life by choice and is therefore murder, but murder can be in self-defense.
A law against abortion will force those who make that choice to also risk ending their own, just as bad.

I guess that makes me morally pro-life and politically pro-choice.


To all who support the passage of laws against abortion:

The problem is not the availability of a choice, but that too many people are making the wrong choice.

[Hasha]

No, I don't think that abortion is the wrong choice. The planet is way overpopulated. There are currently between 20 and 2 times more humans on this planet than is the Earth's carrying capacity for our species (the estimates vary widely; google 'carrying capacity' to get an idea). Therefore, the number of humans will be dropping, and given that we are running out of oil, which is what largely made such a large number of humans temporarily possible, the crash is quite likely coming soon. The more people there are once that happens, the more people will die - it's really that simple. So, my take on the matter is this: if a policy discourages people from having children, it's good (well, unless it involves something outrageous such as hanging women who don't follow it); if it encourages people to have more children - it's bad. Therefore, outlawing (or even discouraging) abortion looks like a really, really bad idea to me.

[mattd]

For what it's worth, my views on the subject:

A human life is created at the moment of conception.
An abortion ends such life by choice and is therefore murder, but murder can be in self-defense.
A law against abortion will force those who make that choice to also risk ending their own, just as bad.

I guess that makes me morally pro-life and politically pro-choice.


To all who support the passage of laws against abortion:

The problem is not the availability of a choice, but that too many people are making the wrong choice.


by "wrong choice" do you mean abortion or sexually irresponsible?

i don't view abortion as morally wrong, if done early enough. the embryo isn't a seperate human at that point, just a lump of cells that are feeding off the host mother. what concerns me isn't that abortion is wrong, but that kids (and adults) and so stupid when it comes to sex. people just need to take the necessary steps to keep from getting pregnant. there's so many forms of birthcontrol out there and for the most part they are very effective.

[VeganMan]

No, I don't think that abortion is the wrong choice. The planet is way overpopulated….

That’s why I think every effort should be made to make birth control available and affordable to everyone and it’s use should be encouraged, but like abortion, it should be an individual choice.


So, my take on the matter is this: if a policy discourages people from having children, it's good (well, unless it involves something outrageous such as hanging women who don't follow it); if it encourages people to have more children - it's bad.


I agree in principle, but the devil is in the details.


Therefore, outlawing (or even discouraging) abortion looks like a really, really bad idea to me.


As for outlawing abortion, I completely agree with you but not for the same reason. Legal, medically safe abortions kill babies; that’s bad enough. Illegal abortions often kill the mothers as well. So outlawing abortion would make a bad situation worse. That’s almost always the result when attempts are made to legislate morality.

As for discouraging it, that’s where we differ. I won’t try to change your mind, I respect your right to believe as you see fit; but I believe life begins at the moment of conception. It logically follows (to those who believe as I do) that self-defense (as in a case where a pregnancy endangers the life of a mother to be) is the only obvious morally acceptable reason for choosing to have an abortion, but certainly not the only morally acceptable reason.

[VeganMan]

by "wrong choice" do you mean abortion or sexually irresponsible?

i don't view abortion as morally wrong, if done early enough. the embryo isn't a seperate human at that point, just a lump of cells that are feeding off the host mother. what concerns me isn't that abortion is wrong, but that kids (and adults) and so stupid when it comes to sex. people just need to take the necessary steps to keep from getting pregnant. there's so many forms of birthcontrol out there and for the most part they are very effective.

Sexual irresponsibility and population control are very important issues and I agree with you on both. I just don’t see abortion as a birth control method because once a child is conceived, it’s to late for birth control.

This issue of abortion is far to complex for anyone to have a simple, direct stance. As for me, I’m morally pro-life but politically pro-choice. I think outlawing abortion would make a bad situation worse. But I also think many people take the decision of whether or not to have an abortion (a decision of overwhelming responsibility) far too lightly.

From what I was told of my father, he wanted my mother to have an abortion because he felt my birth would interrupt his plans. The way it was told to me (by friends of his) he told her that if she didn't, he would not only leave but make sure she never got a dime in child support. Unfortunately for me and my mother, he kept to his word on both counts.

Thank God my mother made the right choice!