• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Abortion: For and Against

D

DrGonzo899

Bluelighter
Joined
Sep 19, 2008
Messages
432
Location
Southeast Georgia
I dont completely get the jist of the argument. Cant the moralists just allow people to kill their babies? It's not their baby. It may or may not be right but under most religions youre not supposed to judge others. Ultimately, if no ones FORCING you to kill your baby, Im fine with it. Anybody else feel the same or somehow opposite?
To reiterate, I dont particularly feel that I would abort a fetus for any reason but as a whole, it should be up to the parents rather than the law.
 
This whole argument just really sucks. It's so overplayed. Yes, I'm pro-choice, and I think abortion is here to stay thank god. It's been so long since the law (in the US) has been passed I just think it's a tired argument.
 
Idk I'm torn actually. I don't feel that its right to take a life. But I've always talked about it with people that I was involved with, recently with my current boyfriend and we agree that if it should happen, (Accidents happen but we are responsible) that it would be more than we can handle. He isn't where he feels he can deal with it and I'm in college and I can't provide a life a child needs. I don't think I could handle it very well, it would be traumatic but when the time comes children will be in the picture, just when I can give them the life a child should have. I'm not this way for any religious reasons. I don't think people should have their choices "made for them", that's what I think religion does. But I agree. This topic has kinda been run into the ground. We just often need to agree to disagree and its hard to know exactly what you would do until you are seriously in the situation.
 
i dont really care. like op said its not my kid. and i would probably hope my gf would want an abortion. in my current state im no position to be a father
 
PillThrill, this is exactly why I started the thread, thank you! You make the decision because youre the only ones who are able to truly gauge the consequences. It can only come down to personal interest between said parents, you are the ones affected. As to other critics standing at the sidelines screeching obscenities, it is none of their business.

Lysis, this isnt about the morality of the act, more about why it's an issue in the first place. I guess..
 
Glad I could help DrGonzo lol. But it very true, as much as you may want to, you can't truly put yourself in someone else's shoes.
 
We need to get serious about affordable, easily-available (OTC) birth control pills for all women who want them! Especially in the poorer neighborhoods.

With the contraceptive technology we have now, abortion should be a very small issue. Why are so many women getting pregnant when they don't want to? I don't understand..

Let's cut this issue out at the source, its the only logical solution. I don't like seeing fetuses killed, but I also certainly don't like seeing women being told how to conduct matters regarding their own reproductive health. It seems like if maybe, as a society, we exercised a bit of foresight we could nip this problem in the bud.
 
I think it's more of a fetish that christian based religions have over fetuses and there souls. They care about the idea of it more than they do any loss of life. Which is why some of them are willing to murder doctors or put up with an increased mortality rate in women or the negative effects of overpopulation. Save them when they're fetuses, fuck em after they are out they're god's problem then.
 
Roger&Me said:
We need to get serious about affordable, easily-available (OTC) birth control pills for all women who want them! Especially in the poorer neighborhoods.

With the contraceptive technology we have now, abortion should be a very small issue. Why are so many women getting pregnant when they don't want to? I don't understand..

Let's cut this issue out at the source, its the only logical solution. I don't like seeing fetuses killed, but I also certainly don't like seeing women being told how to conduct matters regarding their own reproductive health. It seems like if maybe, as a society, we exercised a bit of foresight we could nip this problem in the bud.
Click to expand...

99.9% Accidents happen and most people use condoms I believe. And I believe those are more likely to fail. However often birth control pills aren't taken at the same time everyday or forgotten, thats why depi provera worksso great for me. Nothing is fool proof. But I do agree that if you are going to have sex you DO need to be responsible.
 
I don't care if people get abortions or not. I agree with you OP, I don't know why someone would be so concerned about it, it's not their baby. I mean, I get if you're against it, but I think making a law to prevent it is a little extreme. I don't know if I'd ever get one or not... im really careful with birth control though so I'm hopeful I'll never have to make that choice.
 
I think it comes down to this for me.

The baby is not an autonomous conscious individual thus in my mind it is less of a human being and I could care less if they kill it. Just because it is a potential fully fledged human being does not give it special privileges in my mind. And, anything that relates to internal, personal, bodily issues is purely the territory of the owner of that body as far as I am concerned.

It comes down to the fact that in my mind I view some life as more valuable than others.

Abortion isn't a new issue, women have known for ages and ages how to induce abortions. Christians utilizing the modern scientific knowledge of fetal development just shifted it from a personal issue to a social issue which is yet another example of the disempowerment of women.
 
^ what do you mean by autonomous conscious individual? I think you will find that is an extremely difficult extension to delineate and if your argument rests on our ability to delineate that extension (ie things that are not autonomous conscious individuals can be killed and things that are cannot), then I think your argument shatters apart.
 
well, come on folks it's delineating back to that right or wrong issue again. Hehe, none of you can speak for anyone else but yourself. Lets try not to put down christians or pro-choice people. They can hold their beliefs. what I want to find out is why one of these 2 belief sets has to be the common ground for all people. I'm wondering if these 2 groups can come to a consensus to live and let live. Some pro choice people, on the extreme end, want only genetically perfect human beings; thus preventing mental illness and genetic diseases. The other hand wants all forms of prophylactics and abortion destroyed(boom! remember?) and various other theocratic absolutes enforced.
 
DHYANA said:
^ what do you mean by autonomous conscious individual? I think you will find that is an extremely difficult extension to delineate and if your argument rests on our ability to delineate that extension (ie things that are not autonomous conscious individuals can be killed and things that are cannot), then I think your argument shatters apart.
Click to expand...

I think that conscious individuals have the right to make decisions that don't (in my mind) extend into the social sphere in regards to non-autonomous life inside of them.

I think that when it extends beyond the personal individual decision than it is no longer solely the decision of the individual.

I also feel there should be whatever mechanisms necessary to educate and allow people to make the decision for themselves.

I am not suggesting what I think people should do, but rather where the social morality ends and personal private decision making begins.

by autonomous conscious individual I am referring to the "private" territory of ones own body, where the law of the self is governing principle in actions.

Fetus's, in my opinion, have no bodily autonomy, they are not conscious to the degree that they have formulated an identity/sense of self (lacking an interest in self preservation that transcends the merely animalistic/biological drive of survival), thus the decision is left to those who should have bodily autonomy, memories, analytical thought. Thus true responsibility should be the territory of the mothers, who should be the only source of morality in regards to responses to such a pregnancy.

"things that are not autonomous conscious individuals can be killed and things that are cannot"

and here I would differentiate between can and should, I just view the primary decision maker as the mother who is the only entity who has the ability (and should have such an ability) to end or not to end said life.

I just find the projected interests (projected by cultural values, external individuals to the situation) of the unborn usurping the decision making powers of those who should have bodily autonomy.

perhaps this clarified, or are my terms still undefined?
perhaps my argument is still shattered?
 
It always bothers me how the anti-war crowd tends to promote the killing of infants for the sake of personal convenance. Hypocrites.

The other side promotes the bombing of children in foreign lands, yet want to save the unborn. Hypocrites.

What side are YOU on?
 
mrjackjones said:
It always bothers me how the anti-war crowd tends to promote the killing of infants for the sake of personal convenance. Hypocrites.

The other side promotes the bombing of children in foreign lands, yet want to save the unborn. Hypocrites.

What side are YOU on?
Click to expand...

This is my favourite type of argument and I agree with it on the most superficial of levels. If you think about it for more than 30 seconds though you can see exactly why these two groups can believe in what appear to be hypocritical statements.

Group 1: the anti-war crowd tends to promote the killing of infants for the sake of personal convenance

There are many reasons why people are pro-choice. This can be because they believe women have ultimate control and say in what happens to their body, because they don't believe that 'life' truly starts at conception, victims of rape etc. At the end of the day though, the underlying belief is that the life of a fully formed human is more important than that of a foetus. This is actually inline with the belief that men and women should not be sent out to war to die. People who are pro-choice aren't saying that human life doesn't matter, they're actually saying the opposite. They're concerned with the quality of the life.

Group 2: The other side promotes the bombing of children in foreign lands, yet want to save the unborn.

Firstly, no Christan or religious group promotes the bombing of children. Sure, children and civilians are often an unfortunate casualty of war, but they're really supporting a belief system. They want to eradicate all opposition to their belief system. When they promote their anti-abortion ideas they're still doing the same thing. They just want everyone to believe what they believe because in their mind the world will be better for it.

It's not a life vs death thing in either case. It's so much deeper than that.

Anyway, I realise the above is really obvious, but I'm just getting a bit tired of the abortion/war debates. They're barely related.

For the record, I'm pro-choice.
 
I'm pro-choice.

Granted, getting an abortion is not 'cool'. It's physically and psychologically scarring to many women. Responsible sex lives that [nearly] preclude unwanted pregnancies are far preferable -- an ounce of prevention, and all that.

But for the would-be mother to nurse some wounds, and the child to not be born at all, is in many cases the lesser of two evils. A child who was not wanted in the first place is entering a rather harsh world without much support.

In a democratic society, any person has the right NOT to bear children. This is not a planned authoritarian regime -- no one is obligated to have kids, and indeed, some people are just not cut out to be parents. Plus, we have enough people on this earth already!

I see a parallel with drug policy. Bans only work when the thing being banned is something very few people would even want. If abortion were made illegal, you'd see a rise in dangerous and sketchy back-room abortions, women making costly and dangerous trips to other countries to get it done, and in some cases, outright infanticide. A ban on these REAL travesties is just not enforceable -- providing a safe and legally available alternative is the only way.

I see no reason to believe that banning abortion would cut down on unsafe sex or unwanted pregnancies.

Within our lifetimes, I think this issue MIGHT be rendered moot, or at least greatly subdued, thanks to medical advances in the field of birth control and fertility. Just like we do now with vaccines, I think people in the industrialized world might eventually find cheap and side-effect-free ways tweak their kids' bodies, so that pregnancy isn't something that could possibly happen to them by accident. I honestly think a society where every birth was planned, without reactionary prudishness, would be a beautiful thing.
 
Welcome back, MDAO! I hope you had fun! ;)


As for your post, yes, it's not cool at all to have an abortion. It's the most demeaning, embarrassing, degrading experience for a woman. I'm pro-choice and I also believe woman need better access to birth control. My ring is $75 a month with no insurance. How do people expect low income people to afford it and then get pissed when females need abortions? I also think free birth control will cut down on welfare, but that's a whole 'nother issue.
 
Abortion needs to be legal. There are too many damn people in this world, 6.5 billion and counting. The earth can't handle that many. Look around on google maps, with the exception of desert/artic wastelands, mountains, and state/federal parks, the world is a sea of farmland dotted with cities. If Earth was an organism, people would be cancer, with the cities being tumors. We take and take, far more than our fair share, and drain the earth of all it's life. Think of all the lands that has to be cleared out and destroyed, to make room for farmland to feed that baby throughout it's life. Think of all the plastic toys, and other garbage the baby will need. That baby will grow up to drive car, and spend it's entire life leading a consumeristic lifestyle, doing nothing but destroying and poisoning the world. For every life that's destroyed by abortion, countless more life will be able to flourish in the absence of the destruction that person will create. But unlike regular cancer, we can realize what's going on and stop reproducing number that are so above what the Earth can realistically support.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top