A Non-Religious Abortion Debate

reply to post by sepium


That's the bottom line. The fact that this discussion exists time and time again is INSANE to me. There is NO other situation that compares to reproduction. It's a singularly unique situation, and requires a singularly unique answer. There is only ONE answer to this.

People, live your own lives. Believe as you believe. Apply your beliefs to YOUR lives. And stop trying to dictate how other people SHOULD live, because it's absolutely not your place.

Originally posted by Bone75
I'm starting this thread to prove a point, and if I'm successful, this should be a very short topic.

My position is that abortion and contraceptives that harm fertilized eggs should be illegal. I think its murder and it should be stopped.

Now if you disagree with me, I'd like to hear you argue against my position without the use of pointless religious attacks, and I'm asking those who do agree with me to refrain from doing so as well.

So without further adieu, let the debate begin.

In Rick Strassman's book, "The Spirit Molecule", he says that he began his journey into researching dimethyltryptamine in the 70's because of an odd synchronicity he stumbled upon.

The synchronicity, was that he noticed that both in the Egyptian Book of the Dead, and the Tibetan Book of the Dead, it says that when you die your spirit spends 49 days (7x7) in between reincarnations. This 49 day recycling period was consistent with something else, Strassman noticed.

The real synchronicity is that in biology, they say it takes exactly 49 days for an embryo's pineal gland to appear out of nowhere in the roof of its mouth, and simultaneously, it develops its gender at 49 days.

Which is another synchronicity because the Egyptians also said that when a spirit reincarnates, it remains either masculine or feminine throughout all of its lifetimes. This could explain people who appear to be born homosexual, although I simply believe that homosexuality is a biological issue, I also leave room for spiritual explanations. But this is slightly irrelevant.

Also, the pineal gland has been referred to by philosophers such as Descartes, as the "seat of the soul." It is interesting that he would choose this nickname for the pineal gland, because it has been the center of controversy recently as to its purpose and function.

So we know so far that;
1. The Egyptians and Tibetans believed the spirit entered a new form after 49 days.
2. They also believed spirits retained their masculine or feminine forms.
3. The pineal gland is believed to be the center of consciousness, has been called "the seat of the soul", etc...(do some research yourself on the pineal gland if you don't already know everything about it!)
4. The pineal gland appears at exactly 49 days at the roof of the mouth of embryos, then travels up the skull to the center of the brain and then sits there like a seed.
5. The gender of embryos appears at 49 days as well.

These facts tend to make me believe that human embryos do not have souls imparted into them until the end of 7 weeks.

Ask yourself this, when a man masturbates and his semen gets wiped on a rag, is that the murder of millions?

What is the difference between contraception and a man just spilling his seed on the ground? Are they both not killing little spermies?

You might say, that the moment the sperm enters the egg it receives a soul, or consciosness, but I say that it is still a tadpole, not a human. I say, that it remains a tadpole for awhile, and it is no different than the millions of empty shells guys shoot on their tube socks every day.

My point is that as long as you "prevent" aka contracept, the little tadpole from receiving a human soul, then it's not killing a human. I look at it like this, all of the sperms that make it into an egg are like hotel rooms becoming vacant for spirits to move into. When one lights up, a spirit moves towards it and inhabits it. But it doesn't happen instantly.
To abort a sperm from receiving a human host is not the same as killing it once the soul enters the body. It's more like just shutting the vacant sign off in the hotel lobby, and the spirit just navigates to a different available room.

So as long as you prevent the embryo from turning into a fully potential hotel room for ghosts within the first 7 weeks, I say it's morally acceptable to have an abortion. However, after that 7 week period, I would feel bad for doing it, but honestly, I'd probably still do it. haha

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by sepium

 

That's the bottom line. The fact that this discussion exists time and time again is INSANE to me. There is NO other situation that compares to reproduction. It's a singularly unique situation, and requires a singularly unique answer. There is only ONE answer to this.

People, live your own lives. Believe as you believe. Apply your beliefs to YOUR lives. And stop trying to dictate how other people SHOULD live, because it's absolutely not your place.

I believe that there would be a significant drop of opinions being voiced if the majority of Pro-Choicers didn't have their hands out.

I used to choose to smoke, but the feds didn't pay for my cigarettes. I choose to drink good whiskey but the feds again don't foot the bill. What possible reason can you pose to demand that the taxpayers foot the bill for a 'Choice' when you are given more than enough choices to prevent pregnancy in the first place?

And yes, rape/incest/mothers life in this case is a cop-out. Nearly everyone is in agreement that it is acceptable for exceptions to be made in these situations.

If it is your body then keep your hands out of the coffers. IMO the majority of Pro-Choices simply want to have it both ways; blaming a man at every turn and not accepting an ounce of responsibility for getting knocked up in the first place is very vogue in your circle.

Its very simple! Technically, abortion is NOT murder unless it is illegal. The definition of murder is to "unlawfully kill someone". The idea that only religious people object to abortion is a false one. I know many people who do not claim a religious affiliation that object to it.

I am torn about it to be honest with you. I don't know when life begins. Is it the moment that they take their first breath outside of the womb? This is the question. I believe that life should only be "terminated" for one of the following reasons; punishment for murder, suicide, and self defense. I see no reason to "terminate" a child because they have not committed murder, don't know what suicide is, and pose no threat to anyone.

So the question, again, is "when does life begin".

reply to post by Lipton

Originally posted by Lipton
I believe that there would be a significant drop of opinions being voiced if the majority of Pro-Choicers didn't have their hands out.

I'm not sure what you mean... do you have any proof that the majority of pro-choicers are asking for money?

Is an abortion fund part of the government?

No way! Ever since 1977, when the Hyde Amendment was first implemented, the federal government has refused to cover abortion in public insurance programs. Abortion funds exist to do what the federal government should do. Some abortion funds are part of larger organizations, like churches or clinics, but not one is part of the government.
- See more at: www.fundabortionnow.org...

Although I would approve of government-funded abortion for those who cannot afford it. I don't want my tax dollars going to war, but we don't get to pick and choose. Abortion is a medical procedure.

What possible reason can you pose to demand that the taxpayers foot the bill for a 'Choice' when you are given more than enough choices to prevent pregnancy in the first place?

I have made no such demands. I don't know why you chose me to respond to, but you're not addressing anything I spoke about. If you want to discuss abortion funding, perhaps another thread is a good option.

IMO the majority of Pro-Choices simply want to have it both ways; blaming a man at every turn and not accepting an ounce of responsibility for getting knocked up in the first place is very vogue in your circle.

Now, you are just making things up. I have not blamed any man for anything. Nor have I suggested that the woman does not carry responsibility for getting pregnant. As far as "my circle", I am quite sure you have no idea what you're talking about.

.

Originally posted by Lipton

I believe that there would be a significant drop of opinions being voiced if the majority of Pro-Choicers didn't have their hands out.

I used to choose to smoke, but the feds didn't pay for my cigarettes. I choose to drink good whiskey but the feds again don't foot the bill. What possible reason can you pose to demand that the taxpayers foot the bill for a 'Choice' when you are given more than enough choices to prevent pregnancy in the first place?

And yes, rape/incest/mothers life in this case is a cop-out. Nearly everyone is in agreement that it is acceptable for exceptions to be made in these situations.

If it is your body then keep your hands out of the coffers. IMO the majority of Pro-Choices simply want to have it both ways; blaming a man at every turn and not accepting an ounce of responsibility for getting knocked up in the first place is very vogue in your circle.

It's the children that ARE born and put in the foster care system that is costing tax payers' money. I would think that if you are only concerned about money, you would prefer the cheaper option of abortion, as abortions aren't funded by tax payers.

reply to post by Darth_Prime


I say then you have that choice but you receive no assistance in doing it, you must do it yourself.
However isn't that is considered murder, by law?

reply to post by charles1952


Good morning Charles,

I know this is an issue that is close to the heart for you, as it is for me. We both have very strong opinions. That being said, I take issue with couple of your statements. I'll try to be gentle.

The abortion side seems to be primarily, "You can't tell me what to do with my body." Well, the government certainly can. Roe v. Wade granted states the right to impose restrictions after the first trimester.

I'll start by posting your quote from the Supreme Court commentary from Roe V Wade, that you posted in the other thread, "They're coming for your birth control".

With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in the health of the mother, the "compelling" point, in the light of present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first trimester. This is so because of the now-established medical fact that, until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth. It follows that, from and after this point, a State may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health.

As you can see, the above clearly states that the state may "regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health." States have the right to license practitioners and facilities, as written above, but the wording tends to lean toward leniency rather than restrictivly.

The states have the right regulate the abortion procedure, they don't have the right to impose obstacles in the way of a woman seeking a legal abortion past the 1st trimester. Early terminations are optimum as they pose less risk to themother. The states are given more control past the 1st trimester, by Roe V Wade, for the purpose of providing the safest methods for preserving the health and well being of the mother seeking the abortion.

This control is not to be misconstrued to think that states have the right to impede or restrict a woman's access to a legal procedure. Contraception and abortion are protected under the "Equal Protection Clause" of the constitution.

Examples of permissible state regulation in this area are requirements as to the qualifications of the person who is to perform the abortion; as to the licensure of that person; as to the facility in which the procedure is to be performed, that is, whether it must be a hospital or may be a clinic or some other place of less-than-hospital status; as to the licensing of the facility; and the like

2. The State may define the term "physician," as it has been employed in the preceding paragraphs of this Part XI of this opinion, to mean only a physician currently licensed by the State, and may proscribe any abortion by a person who is not a physician as so defined

States are given the right to allow (less than hospital) clinics and non-physician medical staff, such as an LRN, to perform the procedure. They don't have the right to place obstacles designed to alienate women from the legal and protected procedure, based on economic favoritism, or for purely political or religiously moral reasons.

Besides it makes no sense to say that "it" is part of the woman's body. If that were the case, then women would have four arms, legs, ears, and eyes. Half of the expectant mothers would have a penis.

This is just silly, in my opinion. A woman's ovaries and eggs part of her body. At what point does a woman's egg stop being part of her body? The introduction of sperm doesn't suddenly make HER egg not part of HER body. When an egg is expelled from the ovary and travels down the fallopian it's still part of her body. When a fertilized egg finally attaches and implants in the woman's uterus, it's still part of her body. There is no magical moment of conception or implantation that suddenly separates the woman's body from the egg.

Originally posted by Bone75

Originally posted by badgerprints

Prevention of a pregnancy is a personal act.
Terminating a pregnancy is the act of one person killing the other.

Do you mind if I put that in my signature? It pretty much sums up my stance.

Go ahead.

People hate it when the abortion debate is brought down to this one point.

The simpler the fact, the bigger the fuss.

It's dead simple really.

That's why so many people intentionally make it into a huge mess, debate, emotional, political, religious,social, entertainment issue and get all riled up about it.

So many people want the power to murder but then they need the deniability because they don't want others to see them for who they actually are.

If you were actually say, shooting the baby with a gun, then there would be no tolerance for it.

By the way, just to get the point across, do you realize that there are a lot of people who are more disturbed by the previous sentence than by actually killing a baby?
I don't doubt we'll be hearing from a few of them.

Originally posted by Sippy Cup
reply to post by Darth_Prime

 

I say then you have that choice but you receive no assistance in doing it, you must do it yourself.
However isn't that is considered murder, by law?

don't worry this will happen...because that is what happened BEFORE roe v. wade. of course, the religious right-wing don't read history books, or understand why roe v. wade was passed in the first place. it was to keep mothers, daughters, wives, sisters, from bleeding to death from the butchering of botched illegal abortions.....my mother was a nurse in a small town in Illinois back in the 1940's....and girls and women of that town, and surrounding farm communities both poor and wealthy, came to the doctor she worked with. back then, it was called "female problems", she participated in hundreds of abortions that were kept quiet, even the young girls didn't know what happened to them, the doctor and their own mothers would lie, because of the shame involved.
the anti-abortionists are disgusting in their ignorance of the way "HOW LIFE IS ACTUALLY LIVED".

Originally posted by badgerprints

Originally posted by Bone75

Originally posted by badgerprints

Prevention of a pregnancy is a personal act.
Terminating a pregnancy is the act of one person killing the other.

Do you mind if I put that in my signature? It pretty much sums up my stance.

Go ahead.

People hate it when the abortion debate is brought down to this one point.

The simpler the fact, the bigger the fuss.

It's dead simple really.

That's why so many people intentionally make it into a huge mess, debate, emotional, political, religious,social, entertainment issue and get all riled up about it.

So many people want the power to murder but then they need the deniability because they don't want others to see them for who they actually are.

If you were actually say, shooting the baby with a gun, then there would be no tolerance for it.

By the way, just to get the point across, do you realize that there are a lot of people who are more disturbed by the previous sentence than by actually killing a baby?
I don't doubt we'll be hearing from a few of them.

edit on 5-7-2013 by badgerprints because: (no reason given)

HOW IRONIC!!! regarding your avatar
See also Marvin v. Marvin
In 1971, Marvin was sued by Michelle Triola, his live-in girlfriend from 1965 to 1970, who legally changed her surname to 'Marvin'.[4] Though the couple never married, she sought financial compensation similar to that available to spouses under California's alimony and community property laws. Triola claimed Marvin made her pregnant three times and paid for two abortions, while one pregnancy ended in miscarriage.[18] She claimed the second abortion left her unable to bear children.[18] The result was the landmark "palimony" case, Marvin v. Marvin, 18 Cal. 3d 660 (1976).[19] In 1979, Marvin was ordered to pay $104,000 to Triola for "rehabilitation purposes" but the court denied her community property claim for one-half of the $3.6 million which Marvin had earned during their six years of cohabitation - distinguishing non-marital relationship contracts from marriage, with community property rights only attaching to the latter by operation of law. Rights equivalent to community property only apply in non-marital relationship contracts when the parties expressly, whether orally or in writing, contract for such rights to operate between them. After the case, Marvin was the subject of controversy when he said that the trial was a "circus" and that "everyone was lying, even I lied."

In August 1981, the California Court of Appeal found there was no such contract, and thus nullified the award she had been made.[20][21] Michelle Triola died of lung cancer on October 30, 2009.[22]

This case was used as fodder for a mock debate skit on Saturday Night Live called "Point Counterpoint".[23]

old lee paid for secret abortions...illegal ones too....lee Marvin, under your interpretation, should have been tried for murder along with the doctor, and michelle triola.

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by Sippy Cup
reply to post by Darth_Prime

 

I say then you have that choice but you receive no assistance in doing it, you must do it yourself.
However isn't that is considered murder, by law?

don't worry this will happen...because that is what happened BEFORE roe v. wade. of course, the religious right-wing don't read history books, or understand why roe v. wade was passed in the first place. it was to keep mothers, daughters, wives, sisters, from bleeding to death from the butchering of botched illegal abortions.....my mother was a nurse in a small town in Illinois back in the 1940's....and girls and women of that town, and surrounding farm communities both poor and wealthy, came to the doctor she worked with. back then, it was called "female problems", she participated in hundreds of abortions that were kept quiet, even the young girls didn't know what happened to them, the doctor and their own mothers would lie, because of the shame involved.
the anti-abortionists are disgusting in their ignorance of the way "HOW LIFE IS ACTUALLY LIVED".

edit on 5-7-2013 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)

Correct. Women would stick coat hangers in themselves. They would eat toxic plants, drink bleach and draino. They would throw themselves down stairs. A desperate woman says, "either this baby dies, or I die and the baby along with me." You will never, ever, ever be able to stop them from doing these things, regardless of what you think about abortion. It has been happening since the beginning of civilization, and it will continue to happen if we make medical abortion illegal. As a society, these are our only two choices: medical abortion, or homemade abortion.

Originally posted by Whatsreal
reply to post by Bone75

 

I can make this very simple...

If you eat eggs, you believe in abortion. Simple as that.

Yeah there ya go, let's diminish Human life even further by equating ourselves to chickens.

However, please, PLEASE lets stop calling it pro-abortion. No one is pro-abortion... I am pro-choice, and that's really what's at the heart of the argument. If you want to live in a free country, you must respect the freedom to make a choice about what happens to/in your body. As much as it sucks that a man can't stop a woman from aborting a pregnancy should the father want it and the mother doesn't, its the right way to do it. Let women choose!

That is such a cop-out. The only labels that should exist in any abortion debate are pro-abortion, anti-abortion, and I could care less. If you're pro-choice, then you believe that a woman has the right to choose an abortion, therefore you support the practice of abortion. There is no other choice involved, but your camp decided on pro-choice because it is less offensive.

Originally posted by jimmyx

the doctor and their own mothers would lie, because of the shame involved.
the anti-abortionists are disgusting in their ignorance of the way "HOW LIFE IS ACTUALLY LIVED".

edit on 5-7-2013 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)

But it's not about shame any more is it?
Society seems to encourage single motherhood more than family.
In this day and age a teen mother is held to no high standard or unrealistic expectation. She simply has to carry on with what she started.

So,
By your logic.
There is no need for abortions to hide unwanted pregnancy due to the evil of SHAME.
This is how life WAS actually lived.
Our present society knows no shame.

But then, it still goes back to brass tacks.
R v W was passed to protect the mothers from being harmed while they killed their babies. It was a law of convenience passed to allow murders of convenience.

reply to post by badgerprints

Originally posted by badgerprints
People hate it when the abortion debate is brought down to this one point.

I don't hate it, I just disagree. A "person" is an individual. A fetus is not individualized. It is part of the woman's body. Removing is it a personal choice. If it were a "person" it could survive outside the womb, without depending on the woman's bodily functions. It would be an individual. Don't flatter yourself by thinking you have this all wrapped up.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Agarta

Believing in birth control or not is the choice. If one does not, then they must stand by that choice.

Now, it's gone beyond what other people SHOULD do, to what they MUST do... I think you're way over the line of sticking your nose in other people's lives. It's a COMMON behavior these days and what causes a LOT of the conflict. Ever heard of "Live and Let Live"?

Something that was instilled in me, as I was growing up, is taking responsibility for my actions. That means suffering the consequences of the choices I make, good or bad. To me this is just such a situation. If the choice to not use is the decision, than pregnancy may be the consequence. Technically, by nature, it is the womans job to carry the child/ren, regardless of how conception occurred, therefore a woman has a responsibility to the life inside her. If the responsibility is not wanted than abstinence is the only true logical conclusion. It was technology and medical knowledge that even presented the choice and I think that technology and medical advancements should be used to find a happy medium. The choice is to carry or not to carry and if technology can be designed to continue the development of the life leaving this choice intact it should be. Ending a life, in our society, is considered wrong. If a person kills a pregnant woman it is 2 murders not 1 so I ask you, why is it okay for one to be acceptable while it is not in the other? If it is murder in one way it has to be murder in both or neither. Just as in murder cases there is blatant murder and justifiable homicide so too should abortions be held if true equality is to be met. I feel like I have strayed into the devils advocate/pro life stance which is not my intention. I believe in personal freedoms of ones body, but I also value life above all things so I restate that we, as a people, through responsibility to all life should find a happy medium and move on from this confrontation within society.

Why is it that only the woman may choose whether that life will be a benefit to life on this planet or not.

Because her body is the vessel that will carry and give birth to that life (which carries medical risks to HER life) and most times, she will be responsible for that life for her entire life.

Sexual equality is just that, equality, and part of that is the mans right to create the life and therefore has the right to contest the abortion or birth. It is true, in the societal structure that we currently subscribe to, that it is the woman that holds most of the rights to the child and is the favored guardian(legally) but this is not a true equality world. With the right technology both the mans and the womans rights are protected. I just don't feel it is okay to protect the rights of one and not the other.

I feel, as a man, I have a unique understanding due to the experiences I have had. No, it is true, I have never been pregnant(chances are I never will be) but here is what I understand. During puberty I developed breasts and had them removed, but not until I experienced the pleasures and Pains associated with having them(even more so than a female on the emotional side) and I have always been sympathetic to the female. I have dealt with being with a woman that found out she couldn't have children due to endometriosis, I have dealt with multiple miscarriages of my own children, 2 abortions, 1 of my childs death due to SIDS, complete separation of my childs life due to divorce and them disappearing from my life, 1 still born, and 3 born in distress the 3rd of which almost took my wife as well(the realization of all these experiences spelled out in one place actually hurt more than I thought it would). My life has been lived in total fear of loosing children so maybe I do have a desire to see life succeed, but at the same time I understand and accept the rights of others to make the decision for themselves. Unfortunately we as a people do not take into account that our decisions effect others nor do we care as a population(IMO). The thing is that I don't see society attempting to find another way, but instead fighting over excuses and I want I want I want with total disregard to others and their wants as well as double standards in the law. I just think we, as a people, need to focus on finding another way rather than fighting with each other.

Thank you for this, a civil, debate. It has been enjoyable thus far.

reply to post by Agarta

Originally posted by Agarta
Something that was instilled in me, as I was growing up, is taking responsibility for my actions.

But you're not talking about YOUR actions. You're talking about other people's actions. One thing I've learned about accountability, it's something I do FOR me only. I cannot force other people to be accountable for their actions. It's each individual's choice.

I believe in personal freedoms of ones body, but I also value life above all things so I restate that we, as a people, through responsibility to all life should find a happy medium and move on from this confrontation within society.

It is fine that you value life above all things. I watched my mother die an agonizing death by stretching her life out as long as absolutely possible. MY values may not match yours. I watched my cat get sicker and sicker to the point that she couldn't drag herself to the litterbox. I could have done tests and given her medication to keep her alive, but I chose to have her killed (euthanized). I do not value life above all things. Quality of life is more important to me.

Sexual equality is just that, equality, and part of that is the mans right to create the life and therefore has the right to contest the abortion or birth.

I support a man's right to step away from the responsibility of a child that he didn't agree to have. In other words, the "male abortion". I do not, however support his right to to tell her she MUST have an abortion, only that he doesn't want the child. I support that and hope our laws do one day.

I just think we, as a people, need to focus on finding another way rather than fighting with each other.

Aritficial Uterus
Ectogenesis
Ethical Issues Surrounding Artificial Wombs

Just some interesting links... But I'm afraid the fighting would never end because one person believes ALL should act according to their beliefs, which is what we have now. I would NOT want my child to be raised in an artificial womb and the law forcing me to do so would be violating my person, IMO.

Religions (sorry, OP) would be split on the practice because some would claim it's "playing God" and so on...

The problem is people applying their beliefs, values and morals to all other people. THAT is what causes the fights.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
[ Don't flatter yourself by thinking you have this all wrapped up.

I could give you the same advice.

By the way,
Siamese twins are conjoined and some share the same organs.
Would one tell the other, "You can't live without me so you are not a person. Therefore I can remove you and not be committing murder."

See,
Circular arguments never end and murder is forever.

reply to post by badgerprints

Originally posted by badgerprints
Siamese twins are conjoined and some share the same organs.
Would one tell the other, "You can't live without me so you are not a person. Therefore I can remove you and not be committing murder."

No. Siamese twins are individuals, therefore people. If one killed the other, it would be murder, by law. Murder is a legal term and abortion is legal, therefore NOT murder.

Does Anyone have the right to eliminate rights for anyone on this planet?
Is it the females right to have an abortion if she chooses?
Does a females decision to have an abortion directly affect those who are against it?
If so, in what way?

The OP has said time and again that he does not want to bring religion into this debate.

Well, I can prove that he brought in the religion factor with his 2 sentence opening statement.

My position is that abortion and contraceptives that harm fertilized eggs should be illegal. I think its murder and it should be stopped

Read the part where it says "I think it is murder".

Isn't Murder a moral virtue as set forth by the 10 Commandments of the Bible, Thou Shalt No Kill?

So my question is why is it not o.k. for anyone else to bring religion into the debate when the OP already did with his opening statement?

Also, without the "Murder" aspect there really is no debate. Why? Because those debating against abortion have only one point that can be argued and that is Murder as defined by the bible.

I am asking that if it weren’t considered murder would you be o.k. with it?