The Abortion Paradox

reply to post by Xtrozero


I agree that abortions shouldn't be used as birth control. Not simply because of moral issues, but is not safe, it's expensive, and it's just serves no positive purpose.

As far as when it gets that "protected status", well, it's not really about that for me. It is more of a compromise. I don't need to have all or nothing, and I realize that abortion offends many, and late-term abortions are especially hard on some people's consciences. So, in my opinion, for the good of the public, I always think there needs to be some compromise.

But I don't really want to get into is abortion good/bad, etc. It just isn't what I was trying to convey. I am not saying, "Well, if it wasn't for abortion these people wouldn't be alive, therefore, abortion is amazing!"

That is why I posted it here in the philosophy forum and not politics. You have to admit, politics aside, it is weird to think about, right?

Yes, abortion IS killing - a body - but you can never kill a soul. A soul never dies. The soul leaves the body and may go back to where it came from, which is the Divine Light World, or it will find another embryo to enter.

But no one seems to think about this:
If not aborted, the child could very well be born into a hell. No love from a mother who didn't want it. Mistreatment, maybe abuse. And what not ... It could become another drug addict or criminal only because of that.

People who abort - women who do it and men who insist - are highly immature! Or they wouldn't have had unprotected sex in the first place! And then they fail to take responsibility for the pregnancy that results. How could you expect such immature people to even consider raising a child in love and protect it against dangers in the environment - i.e. against maltreatment, abuse, etc.

So the question may also be what the lesser evil is for that soul. The problem is, of course, that we cannot know how it would have been for the child, if born. It will be a matter of probability. But no one can deny that the probability is quite high that a child that the mother would rather have aborted will not have a happy childhood.

unless it was rape, why the hell was she having sex in highschool for?

reply to post by Gorman91


I don't know who you're talking to but I don't see how it is any of your business anyway.

People really fail at staying on topic around here.

I read the first post and responded.

and it isn't my business, but action reaction. You willingly chose to have sex, then you willingly have to bare the consequences, or you're a snobby brat.

no offense, but that's simply the fact.

[edit on 19-1-2009 by Gorman91]

Originally posted by Gorman91
unless it was rape, why the hell was she having sex in highschool for?

I doubt you'll find a logical answer here. The simple answer comes down to emotional desires. Boys want physical pleasure, bottom line. Girls want boys...or maybe they don't want to lose someone/break up. I think girls have more complex motivations than boys in this case. I've never heard a boy say, "well, I didn't really want to but I was afraid she'd leave me if I didn't give her a reason to stay..."

This is actually on topic. If there's no intercourse, there's no need for abortion. Paradoxal according to the original poster's definition it seems.

[edit on 19-1-2009 by saint4God]

Originally posted by Gorman91
and it isn't my business, but action reaction. You willingly chose to have sex, then you willingly have to bare the consequences, or you're a snobby brat.

no offense, but that's simply the fact.

Let's delve a bit further. I think one of the main reasons why abortion is so prominent is because a boy is not 'bound' to having the child neither physically nor legally. Thus it becomes 'unfair' for girl to have to have a kid by herself. My solution is to DNA test and legally make that man the father. He doesn't have to be around, but any kind of income goes 50% and he's required to make the effort of staying employed. I'd predict a downward trend in abortions in this case...or at least those having children by irresponsible fathers to increase in income to be able to provide for their children better.

[edit on 19-1-2009 by saint4God]

None of this is on topic. Jesus. There are probably at least 50 other abortion threads where can go pat yourselves on the back on your high moral ground.

Again, this topic is the possibility of the people not being here if abortion wasn't legal.

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
None of this is on topic. Jesus. There are probably at least 50 other abortion threads where can go pat yourselves on the back on your high moral ground.

Again, this topic is the possibility of the people not being here if abortion wasn't legal.

Well regardless, your "paradox" will suggest some favoritism. Either you see abortions equal to non-abortions, or you agree that it is something we can't know. If it is the latter, this thread was pointless.

[edit on 19-1-2009 by Aermacchi]

reply to post by juveous


The whole either/or argument is a fallacy. It is not just one or the other. In fact, it doesn't even make sense.

Also, how can you even make the suggestion that we cannot know? As many have pointed out, besides the obvious cases of life-changing events, there are also others whose lives are saved by abortion for medical reasons.

Again, this is the philosophy forum. It's not black and white, God taught me this, all abortions are murder, etc.

or you could perhaps use a method besides abortion.

Abortion is literally the cave-man solution to a problem: hit it with a stick.

Why not create an exo-uteral device? No birth, and no abortion.


It's really quite easy. A solution of liquids found in the womb, plus some stem cells manually grown. You could develop the fetus and then a computer could automate the birth process.

No, instead we use the most primitive means to solve a problem.

reply to post by Gorman91


Whatever, that's fine. Work on that if you want. No one is saying that abortion is the best option. The point of this thread is not how ethical abortion is.

Again, it's merely that some people would not be alive if it were not for abortion. That's all. Nothing else. Take from it what you will, or nothing it all.

It's not a big thing that can really be debated or discussed - it's just a fact. You can even take it from there and apply it to God, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or any other mythical being you possibly worship.

I don't relate abortion to religion. It's a scientific based argument.

And I'll simply say that if you're determined enough to get somewhere that you'll have an abortion, you're probably determined enough to make it through anything. So the probability of being halted from that point where you want to get it pretty low, as you demonstrate the sacrifices you're willing to make to get there, such as the life of another.

The ends are not affected if your means take an imperialistic approach to doing anything to get your life from point A to Point B.

I know I would probably do the same if I were such a person, but I'm just a decimal point bellow such a person, having some, but low, value on other lives.

[edit on 19-1-2009 by Gorman91]

Originally posted by TasteTheMagick
reply to post by Irish M1ck

 

Fantastic observation! Star for you! I can't tell you how much I agree. My mother had an abortion when she was very young, 15, and had me ten years later. Had she kept the first baby, my brother and I wouldn't be alive right now because she wouldn't have been at the night club on the marine base when she met my father. She'd have had a four year old child at the time instead. In this case: in exchange for one life, two were gained.

Apparently, you have never heard of a "babysitter". I have used them on occasion to go out when my child was younger.

Boy, is your mother ever going to be PISSED when she finds out about them.

reply to post by Gorman91


reply to post by sir_chancealot


I can address both of these since they seem to be relatively the same point: Things would have ended up the same even with the child.

True, she could hire a babysitter, but that really doesn't change the fact that the situation would be entirely different. Who is to say they would live in the same place? Why would she get the baby sitter on the exact same night that she met the person she had the child with?

Just in terms of probability, you both have to admit that the odds of having the child and then going on to doing the same actions afterwards are relatively next to zero.

Actually, why would you change the location or residence?

If you're flying high in a career, chances are you're going to be buying a half ass decent apartment.

Even at the bare bones beginning, a simple 4 by 8 ft space is all that's needed for a crib.

And if the kid's too much a problem, ditch it. Why is that an issue? Just drop it off at a hospital anonymously, or just give to to someone else.



And I don't really see how life is affected in the modern era to such an extend to have to change everything. Of course some change would be present, but that's it, just a bit. Feeding isn't a problem these days with government and local aid. Residence isn't an issue because of all the availability of alternative residence from adoption or other things. And cost isn;t an issue because if you are such a hard worker, it shouldn't be an issue, other wise ask the government for aid.

It is very likely that Obama will extend such things also. He has to after all. it's what he promised. Better health care and support for the poor.

[edit on 19-1-2009 by Gorman91]

reply to post by Gorman91


Okay, so we are in disagreement that having a child may not change the things that happen to you in the future in comparison to not having one.

Fair enough.

No, I said changes will occur, but this will not change the end point of success. The reason being that if you take someone who is willing to sacrifice their child for their career, this indicates a personality fixed for a certain endpoint that will do what is necessary to get there, and having a child should not affect such an individual to the extent of preventing her end point because such a personality is that of good work ethic and steadfast mentality of one's career. Obviously if one puts their career so far in importance that they will have an abortion to get to a point, they must work hard enough to eventually get their no matter what. Their bosses must respect them because of this work effort, and perhaps having a child will reinforce the idea that this individual works hard.

So perhaps even more so a working mother will get to the end point faster because their boss will know they are working for 2, not just one.

... Unless the boss is a complete ass.

[edit on 19-1-2009 by Gorman91]

Originally posted by juveous

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
None of this is on topic. Jesus. There are probably at least 50 other abortion threads where can go pat yourselves on the back on your high moral ground.

Again, this topic is the possibility of the people not being here if abortion wasn't legal.

Well regardless, your "paradox" will suggest some favoritism. Either you see abortions equal to non-abortions, or you agree that it is something we can't know. If it is the latter, this thread was pointless.

It is something we can't possibly know hence the thread is pointless

and why I kept asking what the point was as I still held out the possibility there was one. Mick has made that crystall clear their with anyone that doesn't agree with him and are summarily given his reprisals for what he thinks is either off topic or that you are just too stupid like he told me.

Either way, it is a good clue to avoid any future threads by this person but that is just my advice. I havn't seen one rebuttal he hasn't made some snide remark, ridiculed or out and out physically threatened being bold enough to take any doubt it was a threat out of the equation expressing his total disregard for the opinions of what the Mods may say about it.

I'd say anyone that unreasonable is someone you can't argue with and while his nature is to argue, it says nothing about his ability to argue. I would ask anyone that has seen this attitude to step up to the pump as I am sure he will accuse me of attacking him when I am just making an observation and one that he would be wise to listen rather than criticize