Struggling with the abortion issue.

So if there is one political/ethical issue I have a really big problem dealing with it is the issue of abortion. The complexity of this issue to me seems extraordinary. I mean I would rather get into a Israel vs Palestine debate and find it less complicated than abortion.

In this hand I hold the position that abortion should not be illegal, because the state (IMO) does not have the right to impose laws to control the human body.

On the other hand I have serious ethical issues with the practice. These beings are human and despite being unfortunately tethered to another human being for a period of time they will eventually become fully functional members of our society.

Most pro-choice advocates argue that a woman should no have to be burdened with pregnancy if she does not want to be. The same way a father or mother should not be compelled to donate organs to save their child if they do not wish to.

I tried to come up with an analogy about abortion to try and simplify the issue but it did not help at all.

Lets say you have two guys on a train that is traveling on a cliff side. Now the train derails and is hanging over the side of the cliff. One of these men (man 1) is about to fall and clings to the other mans arm (man 2) to prevent himself from falling. Now at any moment the train could fall and the longer the men hold on to each other the greater the risk that both of them will die.

Now lets say for the sake of argument that man 2 is incapable of pulling up man 1. If he stays holding on to the man they both will die. Now while sad I do not find it unethical that man 2 would let go to save himself, in fact I would say it was necessary.

However lets say that man 2 is completely capable of pulling up man 1, but is simply unwilling to. If he lets go is that not unethical?

The above may not be the best of analogies, it is probably grossly simplistic.

I have been watching lots and lots of debates on this issue and they just make me scratch my head more.

So ATS can we discuss this issue here without having a flame war with each other (probably asking a little much there I know)?

Struggling with the abortion issue.

The answer is easy .... are you or are you not comfortable with stopping the heart of a baby human from beating? If you are fine with it ... then abortion is no problem for you and so you shouldn't worry about it. If you have an issue with it ... then you recognize that abortion is morally wrong.

ETA .. the heart of the baby starts beating 22 days after conception.

reply to post by Openeye


I think your analogy fit pretty well op but I'd like to add in a variable, what if man one and two had varying strengths and led to scenarios in which both could survive.



My greatest worry about abortion is a modern day Lillith (I don't agree with this perspective on Lillith) child murderer. A woman who gains satisfaction from aborting babies and equating their own actions as murder would be the landmark case to establish an ultimatum..




Imagine a woman who has had over 100 abortions in their lifetime, all done just for the satisfaction of knowing they could do it.


Imagine a woman who loved you then that love turned to hate, she's pregnant with your offspring and decides to hurt you by aborting your baby and even saying "I killed your baby because I hate you."

reply to post by FlyersFan


Well of course I have a problem with it.

But this still does not resolve the issue of legality.

I can see how someone could be morally against abortion (as I am), but I also find it hard to grant the state the authority to mandate that women must go through a pregnancy.

reply to post by Knives4eyes

Imagine a woman who has had over 100 abortions in their lifetime, all done just for the satisfaction of knowing they could do it.

IMO, any self-respecting doctor would not cater to a 'serial aborter'...
If you're on your second or third abortion, why not just have your tubes tied?

If the answer is, "because I don't want a baby right now"... think about how selfish that notion is.

Originally posted by DeReK DaRkLy
reply to post by Knives4eyes

 

Imagine a woman who has had over 100 abortions in their lifetime, all done just for the satisfaction of knowing they could do it.

IMO, any self-respecting doctor would not cater to a 'serial aborter'...
If you're on your second or third abortion, why not just have your tubes tied?

If the answer is, "because I don't want a baby right now"... think about how selfish that notion is.

I didn't even know there were "abortion addicts" but now that's established in this thread. The probability of serial abortionists is very high, please refer to link for abortion addiction.

abcnews.go.com...

It's going to be a hell of a test ride when you reach that segment of the story that says....

About half of all pregnancies in the U.S. are unintended, and 40 percent of these are terminated by abortion -- 854,122 in 2002, the latest year for which data is available, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Strangely enough I went to investigate the numbers and in 2002-2012, the total US population did not increase...but to recap as follows.

3.9 million pregnancies per year
2.0 million are unwanted pregnancies
0.8 million are aborted.

That's almost a 1/4 the population folks....stem cells for everyone?

Just going to throw my opinion out there for the six-hundred fifteenth time:

No laws should be made to prohibit abortion, however, doctors should be allowed to refuse to perform an abortion if it goes against their personal ethics. Should the doctor refuse, the patient shall be referred to another doctor who would be willing to perform the abortion.

I personally view the child in the mothers womb to be a potential person, not yet a human individual but a part of the mother's body, and I believe that every human individual must have sovereignty over their own body if they are to be considered truly free.

Therefore a woman must be allowed to choose whether or not to carry the child. No woman should be forced to give birth to the child of a rapist. No woman should be forced to give birth to a child which is known to be unlikely to survive or if she is unlikely to survive her labour. No woman should be forced to give birth to a child she is unable to support and raise and provide with a good life.

If you find yourself feeling disgust at my apparent lack of compassion for unborn children, look on the bright side: that child will never experience the terrible things that the world has to offer. They will never know the messed up state of the world. They will never be thrust into the experience of poverty, rape, starvation, or suffering. All they will know is warmth, comfort, maybe a bit of discomfort.

reply to post by Openeye


Dumbest excuse ever... If a woman didnt want to bother with pregnancy, try taking some responsibility and use birth control, there are many different kinds and most are not very expensive at all.
Whats more inconvenient, using a condom or "insert" or going to the clinic and having a baby cut up and sucked out of your womb?
Also, the govt already tells us what we can and cant do with our bodies, especially what we can and cant ingest into them.

Originally posted by Openeye
So if there is one political/ethical issue I have a really big problem dealing with it is the issue of abortion. The complexity of this issue to me seems extraordinary. I mean I would rather get into a Israel vs Palestine debate and find it less complicated than abortion.

In this hand I hold the position that abortion should not be illegal, because the state (IMO) does not have the right to impose laws to control the human body.

On the other hand I have serious ethical issues with the practice. These beings are human and despite being unfortunately tethered to another human being for a period of time they will eventually become fully functional members of our society.

Most pro-choice advocates argue that a woman should no have to be burdened with pregnancy if she does not want to be. The same way a father or mother should not be compelled to donate organs to save their child if they do not wish to.

I tried to come up with an analogy about abortion to try and simplify the issue but it did not help at all.

Lets say you have two guys on a train that is traveling on a cliff side. Now the train derails and is hanging over the side of the cliff. One of these men (man 1) is about to fall and clings to the other mans arm (man 2) to prevent himself from falling. Now at any moment the train could fall and the longer the men hold on to each other the greater the risk that both of them will die.

Now lets say for the sake of argument that man 2 is incapable of pulling up man 1. If he stays holding on to the man they both will die. Now while sad I do not find it unethical that man 2 would let go to save himself, in fact I would say it was necessary.

However lets say that man 2 is completely capable of pulling up man 1, but is simply unwilling to. If he lets go is that not unethical?

The above may not be the best of analogies, it is probably grossly simplistic.

I have been watching lots and lots of debates on this issue and they just make me scratch my head more.

So ATS can we discuss this issue here without having a flame war with each other (probably asking a little much there I know)?

I fail to see how the train analogy is relevant to abortion, maybe it's because you switched man1 and man 2's position half way through the analogy, but I think it has more to do with the whole analogy just being irrelevant.

Abortions are ethically acceptable if performed before the 49 day mark.

I've went into the why of this in detail on another thread, but I forgot which one and I'm too lazy to look for it now.

Basically, long story short, humans receive their pineal gland and their gender simultaneously on the 49th day. This coincides with the Egyptian and Tibetan books of the dead that say that the human soul spends 49 days (7 weeks times 7, or 7 within 7) in a neutral state before it is reincarnated, and the ancient texts also agree that masculinity or femininity remain consistent through reincarnations. This might explain homosexuality on a deeper level as well.

Anyway, "The Spirit Molecule" by Dr. Rick Strassman delves into this synchronicity deeper if you're interested.

It's just saying that embryos are blank canvases until a soul is imparted into them, and the canvas isn't developed enough to receive the soul until 49 days. It has been agreed that the pineal gland is the "seat of the soul", and also the center for the production of dimethyltryptamine, seratonin, and melatonin.

Originally posted by Glass
No woman should be forced to give birth to a child she is unable to support and raise and provide with a good life.

With the exception of rape in regards to this following question:

When has abortion been cheaper or more convenient than prophylactics?

reply to post by Sharingan

Dumbest excuse ever... If a woman didnt want to bother with pregnancy, try taking some responsibility and use birth control, there are many different kinds and most are not very expensive at all.
Whats more inconvenient, using a condom or "insert" or going to the clinic and having a baby cut up and sucked out of your womb?

But this does not apply to a woman who was raped.

A woman who is not sexually active should not have to take birth control just because she might get pregnant if she is attacked on the street.

Also, the govt already tells us what we can and cant do with our bodies, especially what we can and cant ingest into them.

True, but I do not agree with them and I actively protest such by not obeying.

reply to post by Openeye

In this hand I hold the position that abortion should not be illegal, because the state (IMO) does not have the right to impose laws to control the human body.

When I hear someone make that statement I wonder why I never hear in the same breath that someone should be able to sell a Kidney to the highest bidder, or a blood transfusion, bone marrow, ect. (donations are allowed but selling is illegal) Why? Or assisted suicide or euthanasia.

For that matter why is abortion legal but you have to wear a seat-belt?

"What a woman does with her body is none of the governments concern" (but I want free birth control) paid for by the government.

Originally posted by Knives4eyes

Originally posted by Glass
No woman should be forced to give birth to a child she is unable to support and raise and provide with a good life.

With the exception of rape in regards to this following question:

When has abortion been cheaper or more convenient than prophylactics?

Probably never. It is rather costly to employ the services of a doctor, nurses, and other medical staff, even if the state foots the bill.

I don't advocate abortion as a primary method of birth control. However, people make mistakes. Accidental pregnancies happen occasionally for various reasons, whether its a faulty condom, ineffective birth control, uninformed kids screwing around, etc.

reply to post by Openeye

However lets say that man 2 is completely capable of pulling up man 1, but is simply unwilling to. If he lets go is that not unethical?

Let's complicate the issue.

Considering the fact that the reason a lot of people give for getting an abortion are financial reasons.

Consider that man 2 owes man 1 a lot of money, and he knows that if he pulls man 1 up he will be paying him for 18 years and it will totally ruin his way of life. If he let's go now, is it not only unethical, but downright disgusting?

Originally posted by AlienScience
reply to post by Openeye

 

However lets say that man 2 is completely capable of pulling up man 1, but is simply unwilling to. If he lets go is that not unethical?

Let's complicate the issue.

Considering the fact that the reason a lot of people give for getting an abortion are financial reasons.

Consider that man 2 owes man 1 a lot of money, and he knows that if he pulls man 1 up he will be paying him for 18 years and it will totally ruin his way of life. If he let's go now, is it not only unethical, but downright disgusting?

I would say that it was the smart thing to do. Unethical perhaps, but a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do.

reply to post by Kody27

I fail to see how the train analogy is relevant to abortion, maybe it's because you switched man1 and man 2's position half way through the analogy

May I ask where? Man 1 is always the one who is falling and Man 2 is always the one supporting him.

Basically, long story short, humans receive their pineal gland and their gender simultaneously on the 49th day. This coincides with the Egyptian and Tibetan books of the dead that say that the human soul spends 49 days (7 weeks times 7, or 7 within 7) in a neutral state before it is reincarnated, and the ancient texts also agree that masculinity or femininity remain consistent through reincarnations. This might explain homosexuality on a deeper level as well.

Irrelevant. The cells that are dividing are still human, thus the organism is human.

Anyway, "The Spirit Molecule" by Dr. Rick Strassman delves into this synchronicity deeper if you're interested.

Well honestly I have no use for unestablished science when it comes to this subject. Its like pro-lifers saying we shouldn't have abortions because God will be mad.

It's just saying that embryos are blank canvases until a soul is imparted into them,

Well I'm an atheist and a skeptic so I do not truly believe in a "soul".

reply to post by Glass


If we have a 20% abortion rate and 50% of US pregnancies are unwanted we need to reevaluate sexual education for our children and avert how media portrays sex to them also.

Of course there are numerous factors that can be factored into aversion but to deal with the situation long term education is a prime detriment.

Easy...

If you're a male, you can never have an abortion...so it shouldn't matter. You have no say in the matter. If it is your child, that is between you and the mother and for you two to deal with.

If you're a female, it's up to you. It's your conscience and your doctors as well.

If an underage child becomes pregnant, it is up to her parents what to do. If the child disagrees, show them the door.

If a baby cannot yet survive on its own, then it's still a part of the mother...and once again, it's on her conscience.

Someone or something that HAS NOT BEEN BORN YET cannot possibly have any rights to speak of.

The government should not be able to legislate what we are "allowed" to do with or to our own bodies.

Not really that complicated.

reply to post by AlienScience


Hopefully man two is smart enough to negotiate his way out of debt by neutralizing his monetary debt with a life debt.


If I were in that situation and were keen enough to pretend I am struggling to hold on I could use that as leverage and force a deal all the while the other person is none the wiser thinking we were both going to die.

The abortion debate is a non-issue. The SCOTUS decision onRoe vs Wade is set in stone. It's not going to change. This issue is just a smokescreen to divide people so that they don't concentrate on today's issue. Argue about abortion and forget about the deficit, debt, gov't surveillance, etc.