Sane Abortion Article To Start Insane Thread

[yolland]

While I'm not a fan of 'It's horrible people do it, but they will so it should be legal'-type arguments, comparing thrill-seeking behavior like illegal bungee-jumping to the desperation of paying someone of doubtful credentials to scrape out your uterus using God-knows-what in their basement seems extremely callous.

[MadelynIris]

Sorry Yolland. Substitute your poison.

[BVS]

Originally posted by MadelynIris


Ahhh.. this is the argument that really drives me nuts.

Illegal bungie cord jumping off of bridges will happen no matter what too. There needs to be a safe way for that as well.

how does that even make sense?

That analogy is wrong on so many levels it's not even funny.

[Axver]

Originally posted by U2isthebest
Yet, I believe every human life from birth to death has a purpose. I often wonder, "What if the person who would've found the cure for AIDS, cancer, etc. was aborted?" "What if Martin Luther King Jr., Gahndi, Mother Theresa, Bono, etc. had been aborted? What if I, my mother, my father, my best friends, any one I know in any way, shape, or form had been aborted?" What would the world be missing out on now and in the future?

I don't get this argument. You can just as easily argue in favour of abortion by asking "what if this person was going to be a murderer, a rapist, or a paedophile? What if Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, etc. had been aborted?" So I think it's pointless to deal with "what ifs"; it hurts the pro-life case just as much as it helps it.

Personally, I don't have a strong opinion either way. I'm trying to work out exactly where I stand. I don't believe any life that would be viable outside the womb should be aborted, but I'm not exactly knowledgeable about when a life becomes viable (I'd love to know, but I imagine there's extensive debate on the matter). I don't have a problem with terminating a pregnancy when the foetus is completely unviable, like in the first couple of weeks, and in any case where the mother's life is threatened, I wholeheartedly support the right to choose.

[Moonlit_Angel]

Good points, yolland and Vincent Vega, regarding the "It could've been the next Einstein" arguement.

*Edited 'cause Axver just posted the exact same argument I was making, so I'll just refer you all to what he said*

Anywho, pretty good article there-lots of excellent points made (especially regarding the whole meaning of being "pro-life"). I'm no fan of abortion, either, but just outlawing it is not going to solve things. Instead, we need to start working on taking care of the problems that lead a woman to have to make that decision to begin with.

Here's hoping this thread stays civil .

Angela

[BVS]

Originally posted by Axver


I don't get this argument. You can just as easily argue in favour of abortion by asking "what if this person was going to be a murderer, a rapist, or a paedophile? What if Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, etc. had been aborted?" So I think it's pointless to deal with "what ifs"; it hurts the pro-life case just as much as it helps it.

Exactly, it's a worthless argument.

[indra]

Originally posted by coemgen
It's interesting you bring that up. I once read that someone interviewed Mother Theresa and asked her why she didn't ask God for a cure for AIDS. She said he did and the person who was to come up with it was aborted. I don't know how true that is, but it makes you think. It makes a point.

I think she heard him wrong and what he really said was "I did, but the egg that was going to be the person who found the cure was your's and you selfishly decided not to have any children. So there."

You can twist that argument any way you want, and it's clear she did just that.

[coemgen]

Originally posted by Vincent Vega

Well, then they would've aborted God; or Jesus, or whoever.

Yes, it's a shame.
We also could put shame on every car driver that accidentally kills a child because that could've grown up a genius, and so on.

And, like pointed out in the article though in another context, we really would have to safe every sperm, because on of those could be the genius sperm.

With AIDS and certain kinds of cancer (the one cancer cure can't be found) I'm pretty content that one day a cure will be found, although one parent might have accidentally chosen to abort their child, for medical conditions or because they felt not read for it, yet, and hence aborted in the first weeks, or for whatever reason.

But we do better not to rule out abortion. The alternative is by far more cruel.

Yes, but there's a difference between accidentally killing a child and choosing to end a life. That's the argument here.

As far as the whole argument of saving sperm, I have to say that was the author's weakest argument. He's just taking a cheap shot at the other position instead of putting together a rational argument. Nobody's argued we have to save every sperm, the debate is over life beginning at conception or not, or even before the child is born, when is it considered alive. Frankly, the author just makes himself look bad here.

[coemgen]

Originally posted by yolland
By that logic, couples should not only never use birth control, but in fact should attempt to conceive every month when the woman isn't already pregnant, because THIS might be the month when the stars are aligned for YOU to produce the next Einstein, and who are you to deny the world that opportunity just because you can't afford to support another kid right now? It's as if you're saying on the one hand that destiny is written into the genes, but that on the other hand the "right" genes somehow don't exist until an embryo does. But they do, of course; the sperm and egg in question would already have been carrying them. Unless you're assuming that God personally determines which sperm gets to the egg first (and had previously been micromanaging spermatogenesis and ovulation all along to ensure that the Really Good Stuff remained on hold until the stars-aligned moment), I don't see how this line of thinking carries much weight.

It carries plenty of weight. With all due respect, you're using the same faulty logic the author is using about saving sperm. We're talking about a life that's already begun. Not the chance for a life to begin. Two different things there.

[U2DMfan]

Originally posted by A_Wanderer
source

About 10% of evangelicals, according to polls, allow for abortion in the case of rape or incest. But the circumstances of conception should not change the nature of the thing conceived. If it is a human person, killing it is punishing it for something it had nothing to do with.

This is what I've never understood.

If I'm a hardcore pro-lifer, then I'm going to be against all abortions that aren't about saving the mother's life. If you don't want a baby, it shouldn't matter the reason you don't want it. What does this kind of stance say about a person?

"I believe in a culture of life, where all life is valued, even stem cells etc. but I don't want to raise someone elses baby so lets go ahead and kill it."

A non-sensical position, if you ask me.
FYI, I believe John McCain and Mitt Romney support this line of thinking.

[yolland]

Originally posted by coemgen
We're talking about a life that's already begun. Not the chance for a life to begin. Two different things there.

I wasn't addressing when life begins at all. You were making an argument from appeal to genes determining destiny--that e.g. the possible discovery of a cure for AIDS depends on the combination of one particular egg and one particular sperm happening (i.e. the material foundations for one specific individual), and since we don't know in advance which particular combination that might be, no woman anywhere should ever be allowed to have an abortion for any reason. But that's a pointless way to think about it, because the overwhelming majority of eggs and sperm go to waste anyway, or else go on to co-create an embryo with some gamete which lacks the proper chromosomes to complete Mr/Ms AIDS Cure. Again, the 'Mother Teresa argument' only makes sense if you're assuming that God personally saw to it that the precise sperm and egg encounter needed to allow Mr/Ms AIDS Cure to be conceived took place to begin with. There are much better arguments to be made than pinning the value of a life on the infinitesmally small possibility that that individual might turn out to be The Next [name of universally revered hero/ine here].

[nathan1977]

Originally posted by maycocksean
Brilliant article.

I've always been mystified by the mania with with which the Christian Right has latched on to this issue.

Not when you consider the scriptures' perspective on defending the defenseless, the condemnation of child sacrifice, and Jesus' exhortations about looking after children and his comments about dropping those off cliffs with millstones around their necks who harm little ones.

The most defenseless among us are those who deserve the most care.

[coemgen]

Originally posted by yolland

I wasn't addressing when life begins at all. You were making an argument from appeal to genes determining destiny--that e.g. the possible discovery of a cure for AIDS depends on the combination of one particular egg and one particular sperm happening (i.e. the material foundations for one specific individual), and since we don't know in advance which particular combination that might be, no woman anywhere should ever be allowed to have an abortion for any reason. But that's a pointless way to think about it, because the overwhelming majority of eggs and sperm go to waste anyway, or else go on to co-create an embryo with some gamete which lacks the proper chromosomes to complete Mr/Ms AIDS Cure. Again, the 'Mother Teresa argument' only makes sense if you're assuming that God personally saw to it that the precise sperm and egg encounter needed to allow Mr/Ms AIDS Cure to be conceived took place to begin with. There are much better arguments to be made than pinning the value of a life on the infinitesmally small possibility that that individual might turn out to be The Next [name of universally revered hero/ine here].

Actually, that wasn't exactly the argument I was making at all. I was simply using that thought, a thought I admitted to not knowing for sure to be authentically tied to Mother Theresa, to illustrate the idea that we don't know we're missing out on by abortion existing. That's all I was saying. It was being used in a general sense, not a specific sense.

[yolland]

^ Gotcha. I just really dislike the idea of locating the value of a life in its potential to be Something Really Impressive-Sounding. Also, when you said "I'm not sure how true that is" I thought you meant you weren't sure if you believed God literally said that to Mother Teresa...lol.

BTW, since you mentioned Exodus 21:22-23, I made two posts (here and here) on that passage in another abortion thread several months ago. The first post is a direct translation of 21:22 (in response to a translation of 21:22-25 cited earlier in the thread--here) and overview of the entire passage's place in Jewish law; the second is on the terminology used in the Tanakh (OT) to refer to babies, children, pregnancy etc., and what they do and don't etymologically convey in terms of connoting 'personhood.'

[maycocksean]

Originally posted by nathan1977


Not when you consider the scriptures' perspective on defending the defenseless, the condemnation of child sacrifice, and Jesus' exhortations about looking after children and his comments about dropping those off cliffs with millstones around their necks who harm little ones.

The most defenseless among us are those who deserve the most care.

Yes, but I was referring to the "mania". . .the obsession with the issue at the expense of equally valid issues where the defense of children and the defenseless is at stake. Surely you can admit that the political weight of the abortion issue is greater than that of say. . .caring for poor children.

Is there historical evidence that abortion has been always been a keystone issue for Christians throughout the past 2000 years ago? Surely Jesus was aware of the Roman practice of exposing unwanted BORN children. Why didn't he speak out and condemn this practice specifically? (Please understand that my question is NOT meaning to imply that Jesus APPROVED of the practice. . .I'm just pointing out that maybe, the rights of the unborn--and newly born--weren't THE defining issue of the early church the way they are the modern church. Myh question is: why the change?)

[DaveC]

Originally posted by maycocksean

Is there historical evidence that abortion has been always been a keystone issue for Christians throughout the past 2000 years ago? Surely Jesus was aware of the Roman practice of exposing unwanted BORN children. Why didn't he speak out and condemn this practice specifically? (Please understand that my question is NOT meaning to imply that Jesus APPROVED of the practice. . .I'm just pointing out that maybe, the rights of the unborn--and newly born--weren't THE defining issue of the early church the way they are the modern church. Myh question is: why the change?)

This is a very good point.

I think I'll jump into the debate once I see something I feel qualified to respond to. For the record, I'm fairly undecided on this point. In the past (when I was much younger and considered myself a Christian), I've been pro-life. More recently (but not currently) I felt like I'd changed my mind and become pro-choice, but I've come to realize that I really haven't made my mind up, so if I seem to argue or agree with both sides as the thread goes along, please don't jump all over me. Just wanted to clarify where I stand before I jump in

[BVS]

Originally posted by nathan1977


Not when you consider the scriptures' perspective on defending the defenseless, the condemnation of child sacrifice, and Jesus' exhortations about looking after children and his comments about dropping those off cliffs with millstones around their necks who harm little ones.

The most defenseless among us are those who deserve the most care.

Yeah and I would respect the Christian right if they put just half the energy and political weight they put behind this issue towards protecting poor children, iraqi children, giving habeus corpus, etc...

but I don't see them doing much after they're born. So you can see why so many see them as hypocrites.

[DaveC]

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Yeah and I would respect the Christian right if they put just half the energy and political weight they put behind this issue towards protecting poor children, iraqi children, giving habeus corpus, etc...

but I don't see them doing much after they're born. So you can see why so many see them as hypocrites.

This has always been a real sticking-point for me too. The passionate protection of unborn life to a greater degree than born children infuriates me.

Of course, that's not the position of every pro-lifer...

[sulawesigirl4]

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar

Yeah and I would respect the Christian right if they put just half the energy and political weight they put behind this issue towards protecting poor children, iraqi children, giving habeus corpus, etc...

but I don't see them doing much after they're born. So you can see why so many see them as hypocrites.

This is what it boils down to for me as well. As soon as the Christian right starts campaigning for health care for all children, extensive maternity and paternity benefits, childcare, better working conditions, minimum wage, etc. then they might be able to call themselves "pro life". Otherwise, I would say they're simply "pro birth".

[U2isthebest]

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Yeah and I would respect the Christian right if they put just half the energy and political weight they put behind this issue towards protecting poor children, iraqi children, giving habeus corpus, etc...

but I don't see them doing much after they're born. So you can see why so many see them as hypocrites.

You hit the nail on the head. I was just going to say this, but you said it better than I could.