Those that are against abortion

reply to post by Charmed707





You're an idealistic young woman on the threshold of life - everything is black and white

to you now [ I've been there]

Thirty years down the line revisit this thread and you will be amazed by your own arrogance,

and the volume of 'grey hues' that exist in life.

Not everyone who has a termination does it because they don't want children - there are a

myraid of other reasons, and some already have children and others go on to have children.



The breathtaking arrogance of youth get's tempered by years of actual experience, our

attitudes and values invariably change as we grow older and are shaped by our own

experiences in life.

reply to post by 4FreeDom4all


The question she presented was about people who are against abortion. Shouldn't everyone be against it? Why should it ever be the first choice. If you raise a question in a public forum you should be willing to defend it. My question is do you ever think abortion is wrong. It is a good question and responsive.

Originally posted by john_bmth

Ok let's follow your reasoning. Therefore gold ore isn't gold, a rough diamond isn't a diamond. I get it. Almost everything in this world takes time to nurture. It's a process. Also,there's a huge difference between the chicken's egg in your picture and a fetus. The chicken eggs you eat aren't fertilized.

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by Xtrozero

 

Not all of them, no.

But all of them can be aborted, no?

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by Xtrozero

 

Not all of them, no.

But all of them can be aborted, no?

No they can't. 24 weeks is the cut off unless the baby is confirmed to have a fatal abnormality. Are you being intellectually dishonest or did you genuinely not know this?

Originally posted by Kyobosha

Originally posted by john_bmth

Ok let's follow your reasoning. Therefore gold ore isn't gold, a rough diamond isn't a diamond.

This has nothing to do with the debate whatsoever. Atoms do not change, nor are they organic matter. A human embryo isn't a newborn baby with rough edges that are hacked off and polished to deliver the final result.

Also,there's a huge difference between the chicken's egg in your picture and a fetus. The chicken eggs you eat aren't fertilized.

And how do you know that egg hasn't been fertilized? More importantly, why would it matter? You're saying that at the point of fertilization is magically becomes a living, breathing human being? This is an unsubstantiated, emotionally charged opinion, it is not backed up with evidence. Define exactly at what point a bunch of cells become human using evidence. "Because Bible" or "because I say so" will not suffice.

Originally posted by john_bmth
No they can't. 24 weeks is the cut off unless the baby is confirmed to have a fatal abnormality. Are you being intellectually dishonest or did you genuinely not know this?

One would think, but in some states, like Kansas, They can abort at anytime if the "physical health" or "mental health" of the mother is considered affected, so there is a thriving business of post-viability and partial-birth abortions. Loopholes that make it 100% assured that you can get a legal abortion at anytime of the pragnacy.

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by Kyobosha

Originally posted by john_bmth

Ok let's follow your reasoning. Therefore gold ore isn't gold, a rough diamond isn't a diamond.

This has nothing to do with the debate whatsoever. Atoms do not change, nor are they organic matter. A human embryo isn't a newborn baby with rough edges that are hacked off and polished to deliver the final result.

Maybe I didn't explain my positon well enough. I'll try to clarify. From a logical point of view, crude oil, gold ore, cotton, carbon, among other things are valued for what they can become. Everyone claims they value a human life (like we value refined gold or oil) so why then do we not value an embryo that becomes a human life? We value inorganic materials more than organic, why?

Also,there's a huge difference between the chicken's egg in your picture and a fetus. The chicken eggs you eat aren't fertilized.

And how do you know that egg hasn't been fertilized? More importantly, why would it matter? You're saying that at the point of fertilization is magically becomes a living, breathing human being? This is an unsubstantiated, emotionally charged opinion, it is not backed up with evidence. Define exactly at what point a bunch of cells become human using evidence. "Because Bible" or "because I say so" will not suffice.

edit on 12-11-2011 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)

First off, I didn't mention the Bible or any kind of faith. Nor did I say because I say so. No, an embryo is not a 'independently living or breathing' human. The embryo however is becoming such. You didn't come from nothing, you came from an embryo; you weren't all of a sudden an 'independently living or breathing' human you were nurtured to that point. I just don't follow the logic of you aren't a human until you are past a certain point. Those 'cells' still are humans, they have human DNA, the cells are alive, abortion kills the cells, therefore abortion kills a human.

reply to post by KrazyJethro

Sorry for not replying sooner, I have had a fairly busy weekend myself.

I think your posts are excellently articulated and constructed arguments. It shows that reason can reign supreme, that there can be a middle ground achieved and that except for the extreme sides of the discussion (that many revert to as their default position) generally most people agree and share similar views about humanity and moral imperatives, even if they do differ on key points.

I actually agree with most of what you say, which highlights that opposite sides most likely have more in common than heated discussion allows us to discover.

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
There seems to be a brick wall in terms of viability before 21 weeks of gestation. However once 24 weeks come, the viability jumps to between 54% and 80%... ...We could get into a technical discussion...

In my opinion, once brain waves are detected (from week 20 onwards), then viability has been established and at that point abortion becomes very contentious, and shouldn't be allowed unless the life of the mother is threatened. No need to get technical , I think we generally agree on this (about viability).

... At some point our technology and ability will remove the viability factor, even if we just look at the advances in the past 30 years or so.

This will be a turning point for this whole discussion. When technology reaches the point where it can maintain a foetus externally from the womb (or even be transferred to another willing woman's womb for the remainder of embryonic development) the need for abortions will become almost non-existent. If a woman finds herself with an unwanted pregnancy, it can be removed and sustained through other means. This seems like an ideal ultimate situation. Unfortunately we are not there yet, and so the issue of abortion has to be addressed in a compassionate way that takes into account all sides of the argument. Given that abortions have been around for probably as long as we have had society it is worth legislating around the issue, which is what most progressive societies have done.

In terms of the parasitic nature, a rational case can be made that children outside the womb cannot survive alone.

Agreed... which is why I made a distinction between parasitic dependency and post-viability dependency. The parasitic stage of dependency (up until week 20) is when the foetus is totally dependent on the woman's physiology. After that, while a foetus/baby/child still most likely requires care to survive, there is a chance that care can be transferred to another, eliminating the need for the original woman. This is an important distinction as I believe as a collective we have to do our best to care for all viable beings. Even if one believes a pre-viable foetus holds humanity (and this comes down to morals and opinions), I believe the rights of the woman take precedence over an un-viable organism that is attached to her body.

...I think getting into a discussion of where humanity or life truly begins is a losing one for both sides. In my view, it seems reasonable that when discussions of human life are concerned, if there is a disagreement it serves our species best to err on the side of more life.

While I agree that the discussion around where human life truly begins is a slippery slope leading to irresolvable points of view, as shown by this and other threads on abortion, It is key to the issues at this point in time. It is the current scientific definition of this fairly arbitrary line that has partially been used by legislators to define the legality of abortions. Erring on the side of life is commendable, but I believe the right to abort comes back to the viability argument.

The question arises of "do the rights of the woman take precedence over the rights of an un-viable entity". My answer to this is, they have to, though I completely understand that there are those who have a different opinion on this.

Given that disagreement, it has to come down to the majority making the decision, and everyone else has to accept that decision, just as we accept many laws that we don’t necessarily agree with. This is the current state of affairs in most legislation on abortion. Though as with everything, it may change in the future.

I feel a cultural shift needs to occur to increase the value of human life.... Condemnation is a fruitless tree that is better left unplanted...

I don’t have the space to fully quote the final section (or other sections) of your post, but just let me say this...

You are indeed a scholar and a gentleman! If more people had your reason, the world would be a better place!

You have indeed answered my questions, and i thank you for an enlightening discussion.

There is hope for the world yet!

Cheers

reply to post by Kyobosha

Maybe I didn't explain my positon well enough. I'll try to clarify. From a logical point of view, crude oil, gold ore, cotton, carbon, among other things are valued for what they can become. Everyone claims they value a human life (like we value refined gold or oil) so why then do we not value an embryo that becomes a human life? We value inorganic materials more than organic, why?

Ores and materials are indeed valued less than finished products.

I dont think potential human beings should deserve protection.

Originally posted by Xtrozero
No, I asked if YOU find your own life cheap... not in the eyes of others...

Do you think everyone sees life as cheap? At what point do we try and change that, and does "those in charge" cheapen life more by deciding that an unborn child is not human but a thing that can be killed at one owns desires?

There is no black and white answer here. If a person values life it doesn't mean that they might one day find themselves in the position to take a life, but as a society we can be like past civilizations where life has no value, or we can at least at a personal level put value to life. Abortion is a personal choice, so whether "those in charged" value life or not has nothing to do with this one.

edit on 12-11-2011 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)

Right, apologies if I misunderstood. I do not value my life cheaply no. I however don't value it as it truly should be valued, and again this does have something to do with how society values it.

Regarding this topic, I do think the "value of life as seen in society" plays some role. Humanity as an entity is a vile thing, we are not fit to be on the planet. I hope that answers in a more befitting manner.

Originally posted by Maslo

Ores and materials are indeed valued less than finished products.

I dont think potential human beings should deserve protection.

Finished products aren't valued more really; they cost more due to labor, transportation, supply and demand, and related costs though. Cost and value are two different concepts.

Also, please clarify what you mean by 'potential' human being. By potential do you mean they aren't human yet or they aren't dependent yet? In your view why do they not deserve protection? What must be done for someone to earn the right of protection?

reply to post by eletheia


Arrogance? There's nothing more arrogant than thinking a human being that you created deserves to be stripped of the most fundamental human right for the sake of your own selfish desires.

I've already been through a 'pro-choice' phase. That mindset is based on nothing more than pure narcissism.

It's funny how some older folks like yourself attempt to play the 'older, wiser' archetype, yet say nothing of the sort until after it is known that the opposing person is young. Nice try.

I think it just frightens you that there are actually some women (especially young ones) that aren't gullible enough to fall for the 'woman's right' masquerade in the issue of abortion.

Originally posted by torqpoc
Right, apologies if I misunderstood. I do not value my life cheaply no. I however don't value it as it truly should be valued, and again this does have something to do with how society values it.

Regarding this topic, I do think the "value of life as seen in society" plays some role. Humanity as an entity is a vile thing, we are not fit to be on the planet. I hope that answers in a more befitting manner.

Humans are the Velociraptor of the modern world. We extinct just about any other life form we come in contact with, and other life forms we breed in mass quantities to eat. We are not nice in any sense of the word.

With that said we can hold life in the highest esteem too. People will sacrifice themselves for others, hell even their pets, ya we are a strange breed. We have a choice though for we can live in a world much like the Romans where life meant little, and slavery and just about everything we see today as vile was a norm.

For us to continue to grow as a civilization we need to value life, and abortion as it is today chips away at that value. Hopefully one day we are fit for the planet...

reply to post by Kyobosha

Finished products aren't valued more really; they cost more due to labor, transportation, supply and demand, and related costs though. Cost and value are two different concepts.

I dont think they only cost more, I think they have higher value. I would certainly value my finished notebook more than a pile of resource ores from which it can be made.

Also, please clarify what you mean by 'potential' human being.

They have a potential to turn into human being in the future, but are not human beings yet.

Being:

It refers to a discrete life form that has properties of mind (sentience), which are deemed to constitute a more complex state than simple organisms (i.e. that have only "life functions")

In your view why do they not deserve protection? What must be done for someone to earn the right of protection?

It must have a mind. Mind is what gives us rights.

reply to post by Charmed707




On an anonymous board such as ATS no assumptions can be made about a 'poster' till

they themselves reveal. On your revelation that you were a 'young person' your views were

then more clear as to your 'actual' experience in life. All the books. lessons and lectures are

well and good, but it is your OWN experience's in life that will eventually make you a different

individual than you are now.

Like i said you won't recognise yourself many years down the line [knowledge is no substitute

for experience]

I have no fear of 'youth'......... i am old enough to have seen it all before [been there done that]

(Only my opinion) I agree i believe rape victims should be given the right for abortion and i believe 13 year old children should be given the right to have a abortion but when you are mid age or old enough for the understanding that you can not have a child then please use protection with your partner it also doesn't help with the "16 and pregnant" shows though it shows the difficulty of parenting and childbirth i think its inappropriate to be on television i sounds like a prune i know i am 18 but my beliefs on this is strong.

reply to post by eletheia


You are right, but it is funny that when I was young I was for abortions, or didn't care about them other than as a tool to easily fix an unwanted situation. As I am older now too, I see the assembly line mentality of abortions as an error that negatively affects society as a whole. I don't think how it is now where a woman can walk in and find herself being positively pushed in the abortion direction, right at the door, due to greed on the part of the clinic for free money from the state "to make it all go away" as a positive direction for society.

If you give a young girl the choice of this free and easy path compared to other paths it's no wonder we average 1.3+ mil abortions per year in America, so with me, I find this whole industry that I'm more against than anything else dealing with this subject.

reply to post by Xtrozero




Well if nothing else there's some proof of my saying "that one's life's experience's are what

eventually mould one's views in life"

Unlike you i started at the 'other end' and it was things that happened in my life and around

me that changed my views. Although an older poster i have a lot of contact and confidence's

of teens and twenties, and i haven't once come across a 'cavalier' attitude toward unplanned

pregnancies - the worst i have come across, and not just once is the response from the

male responsible "get rid" [like wasn't he there at the conception ? ] Yet again another

young girl left high and dry


I can't speak for the USA but here in the UK the only requirements for a termination is a GP

referral and two separate psychological reports with that the termination is 'free' [compliments

of the NHS so no money making there! ] infact this service is abused by many people from

other countries.

It has been said that preganancy of a single mother is positively encouraged in the UK as

they are awarded many benifits not available to others, including accomodation.


If a pregnant woman of 5 months [20 weeks] dies naturally or gets strangled, stabbed or

shot.the medical profession will not try to save the embryo/fetus because it isn't viable yet?

Originally posted by muse7
Are you also against the woman having an abortion if she gets raped by a family member/complete stranger?

If you're against abortion then that means that the woman should be forced to have the baby, all because your 1000+ year old book says it's an "evil" thing to do. It's a shame how religion still has a choke hold on social issues, especially in America. European countries are light years ahead of us when it comes to gay unions/marriage/abortion etc..Why? Because they have managed to set themselves free from the teachings of an ancient book that was based on nothing more than superstitions that are considered stupid and foolish by the majority of the scientific community.

You should stop making others feel guilty because of their personal decisions, at the end of the day it's THEIR life and not yours you don't know the situation they are in. Some of them don't like the idea of giving up the baby for adoption and they shouldn't be forced into anything because of the stupid beliefs that are still prominent amongst some.

Nearly all abortions take place in the first trimester, when the fetus cannot exist independent of the mother. As it is attached by the placenta and umbilical cord, its health is dependent on her health, and cannot be regarded as a separate entity or as a "person".

edit on 11/10/2011 by muse7 because: (no reason given)

Murder is murder ,what is the difference if the baby is two months old or two years old it is still a human child not just a bunch of cells. Why stop there if I had my way I would abort people of your opinion and bring a healthy child into the world after all you are diseased with this sick train of ideology.