Abortion compromise...what do you think?

[Tgace]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=atheists+against+abortion&spell=1

 

[Tgace]

Heres some well educated atheists discussing the issue...similar to what we had here but better written IMHO. Seem like intelligent folks.

http://strangedoctrines.typepad.com/strange_doctrines/2004/09/atheists_agains.html

 

[Melissa426]

Heres some well educated atheists = Seem like intelligent folks.

There's an Contradiction, IMHO, if I've ever heard one.:uhyeah:
I am being sarcastic, I'm sure there could be some "intelligent" atheists somewhere.


My argument for being pro-choice comes down to this:

Making an act illegal doesn't prevent it from occurring.
Murder is illegal, but people still kill.
Theft is illegal, but people still steal.
If abortion is illegal, desperate women will still attempt to get abortions and many of them will die horrible deaths. Look at abortion mortality statistics pre-Roe v. Wade. (Know what happens when you die from tetanus? Sepsis and multi-organ failure?) Even if they don't die, there's a great potential for seriously and possible permanently damaging her reproductive organs.

No woman should be forced to choose between pregancy and the possibly suicidal act of obtaining an illegal abortion.

Right now, where I live, as far as I know, the cutoff for pregnancy termination is 24 weeks, but that may vary from state to state. Could a 24 week fetus live, and have true quality of life? Right now, it's extremely rare. As medical science progresses, the answer to that question will be "yes" more and more often, so I can see in the future the termination cutoff being lowered.

Peace,
Melissa

 

[heretic888]

I am being sarcastic, I'm sure there could be some "intelligent" atheists somewhere.

That's very interesting....

considering most of the psychological tests I've seen have shown an inverse relationship between IQ and religiosity.

Of course, there tends to be a parallel relationship between religiosity and personal health, both physical and mental.

 

[Tgace]

I defininately can see that point. From that link I posted , one of the writers said this

I used to be pro-choice (on utilitarian grounds). I worried that if abortion weren't legal women would maim themselves with coat-hangers, rubber mallets, Raid, etc., trying self-abort, and that a sketchy underworld of abusive "clinics" would develop. I now think the argument that underlies this position has problems. There's a serious moral issue here, and here, bad effects given ~p, does not vindicate p.

Its the typical arguement of "if" you believe abortion is wrong, how do you justify righting one wrong with another wrong?

 

[rmcrobertson]

Underneath all the fancy language, it's still guys who assume that women, the poor dears, cannot think logically and morally. I'm not sure I see a fundamental difference between the "atheist," anti-abortion position (which appears to be a coupla guys on a chat line, not the whole website), and the, "Christian," anti-abortion position in that regard.

As far as I'm concerned, all the theological and philosophical wrangling just underscores the reasons that this ain't nobody's business but the woman's, her doctor's, her friends. And why it ain't nobody's decision but hers.

We assume, in this country, that education and social position and even intelligence have nothing to do with the right to vote, and that people will choose correctly. But I guess that's just with men, eh?

 

[Makalakumu]

Xequat, you need to check your math. The number "half our country" is grossly exaggerated, I think you will find a large majority are pro-choice. Many of that majority will have some reservations about termination as a pregnacy comes to term, but are not willing to surrender the first principle for the second.

I recently heard the discussion termed as 'Moral Equivilancy'; when does the fetus gain the moral equivilancy to a human being (which brings us back to the original brain wave argument). Is a fetus with brain waves, the equivilant of human being in the hospital with brain waves. I do not agree that the fetus is morally equivilant to a born child.

I am trying to understand how some can believe that a human sperm cell, fertilizing a human egg cell in a petri dish is morally equivilant to a human being? Which is the arguement against stem cell research.

According the Log Cabin Republicans, a moderate conservative faction in the GOP, 80% of the US supports abortion in some way shape or form.

 

[heretic888]

Underneath all the fancy language, it's still guys who assume that women, the poor dears, cannot think logically and morally. I'm not sure I see a fundamental difference between the "atheist," anti-abortion position (which appears to be a coupla guys on a chat line, not the whole website), and the, "Christian," anti-abortion position in that regard.

And what, praytell, happens when the pro-lifers happen to be women??

 

[Tgace]

According the Log Cabin Republicans, a moderate conservative faction in the GOP, 80% of the US supports abortion in some way shape or form.

Id believe that number...I do agree with it up to a point too.

 

[Tgace]

And what, praytell, happens when the pro-lifers happen to be women??

Thats not so easy to address. Much easier to discount all argument based on a persons sex......

 

[Feisty Mouse]

And what, praytell, happens when the pro-lifers happen to be women??

Honestly, I think then it's women who feel they are in the moral high ground, and "know better" than other women - based on religion, SES (socioeconomic status), other kind of background ("they have no morals"), etc.

I have found that it is a lot easier for women who come from wealth to be flip about this issue (even though some of them have had abortions) - since a pregnancy would not completely rock and destroy their financial world as it would a middle- or lower-class woman.

 

[Tgace]

So all dissenting opinions are due to power, religon, control and snobbery??

I guess everybody has their pet topic where everybody who disagrees with them never has a valid point beyond some personality shortcoming.

Of course I have my own topics where I guess I have to accept that I do the same....just comforting to see Im not alone.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

So all dissenting opinions are due to power, religon, control and snobbery??

I guess everybody has their pet topic where everybody who disagrees with them never has a valid point beyond some personality shortcoming.

Of course I have my own topics where I guess I have to accept that I do the same....just comforting to see Im not alone.

I think the anti-abortion (i.e. limit abortions in ways that do not allow the pregnant woman and doctor to make the choice, but determine for a woman what she can and cannot do abotu her pregnancy) arguments are due to a number of different perspectives. I never said these were "personality shortcomings". They do, however, essentially say, "I feel so strongly about this that I want a law to limit what a woman can chose for herself, because she may do something I think is wrong/unethical/unnecessary/yucky" and so forth.

And that is where I have the problem, and why I am so strongly pro-choice. Other people can be voiciferous in their opinions - and for them, it is the right opinion. But I don't want someone else's opinion to matter more than my own, if I am deciding about my own pregnancy and health.

 

[rmcrobertson]

"Much easier to disregard all argument based on a person's sex?"

Leaving aside the fact that this is the same old same old silly reverse discrimination claptrap (now, WHITE PEOPLE are being discriminated against by affirmative action!! now, MEN are being discriminated against by feminists!!!), the remarkable thing about this comment is its symptomaticity.

Whatever women say, whatever women do, however reasonably they argue that they're perfectly capable of making this particular decision and a whole buncha others, there're always men--and women who've bought into what men are selling--who will indeed disregard everything women say on the grounds of their sex.

This happens, in part, because being against reproductive choice is NEVER an isolated opposition. It is ALWAYS tied to a constellation of religious ideas, and of ideas about what society should be like.

I say again: the denial of choice represents the ongoing attempt to keep women in their place. Without COMPLETE control over their bodies--the same level of control men take for granted--none of the other rights matter.

So, which of you guys wants to sign up for the Abortion Police? or the Sex Police? Or will you simply be leaving the dirty work to the working class?

Funny, as always, how all the libertarianism stops dead when it comes to women.

 

[Tgace]

And that is where I have the problem, and why I am so strongly pro-choice. Other people can be voiciferous in their opinions - and for them, it is the right opinion. But I don't want someone else's opinion to matter more than my own, if I am deciding about my own pregnancy and health.

I can respect that...Im just concerned about the point where it becomes somebody deciding to, what could possibly be, killing a separate, innocent, life. Philosophically/morally and medically I dont think we have come to a conclusion (may not be able to. granted) to when that is. How being concerned about human life gets twisted into being a power hungry, woman controller.... I dont know. Im not demanding anybody do anything, just trying to discuss the issue.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Twisted, schmisted.

I'm curious: why do you feel that women cannot be trusted to make these decisions, since they're the ones who carry the baby? Why do you feel that, "hands off," this is some other competent adult's business, isn't good enough?

This, "issue," has been discussed, discussed, and discussed. I can't think when it was that I last heard a new point concerning it.

So, why do you even consider the possibility that your beliefs should override women's?

Why isn't "free as possible to make one's own choice," good enough? Why is this choice so much more of a concern than Ronald Reagan ordering an airstrike that killed a baby girl?

Those are real questions. Can you explain why?

 

[kenpo tiger]

I can respect that...Im just concerned about the point where it becomes somebody deciding to, what could possibly be, killing a separate, innocent, life. Philosophically/morally and medically I dont think we have come to a conclusion (may not be able to. granted) to when that is. How being concerned about human life gets twisted into being a power hungry, woman controller.... I dont know. Im not demanding anybody do anything, just trying to discuss the issue.

Take it a step further. Tgace, you must work certain hours at a job we will select for you without your input. You will be paid a certain wage, overtime will be required with no compensation. You will have only the following time off, no exceptions: Christmas, Thanksgiving, because after all those are religious holidays and you must observe them. You get my point, I think.

Same thing with regard to telling us what we can and can't do with our bodies/lives, way I see it.

 

[Xequat]

Hey, gang...I'm back for a little bit. Yeah, those numbers are probably true to a point. I mean, I support abortion to a point, too. So that leaves %20 that believe it's wrong in all circumstances. There are probably also %20 who believe that it's right in all circumstances. But you got the idea.


Also, I am after a suitable compromise because we will never agree on the beginning of life if we do not already. To answer Robert's question, I believe that it's my duty to "impose my beliefs" on others for the same reason you feel it's your duty to impose your beliefs that murder is illegal on others. The problem is, we can all agree that once a person is born, he/she is alive. But that's not so with embryos and fetuses. We won't agree on when human life begins. That's fine. Quite simply, for some, it's a women's rights issue. Not wrong. For others, it's a children's rights issue. Not wrong. So let's meet in the middle and end the issue, whether it's at 10 weeks, 27 weeks, whatever. Then we can let our conscience be our guide.

 

[shesulsa]

A woman's gift of the ability to bear life is phenominal - a blessing.

That said - the decision that requires intestinal fortitude is whether to give life and give it to someone else (adoption), bear and raise the child yourself (no small task) or terminate the pregnancy (something one never forgets).

I wish everyone who thumped Bible, heart, science, etcetera about when life actually begins and our responsibility to protect all life on the planet would go out and adopt one or two children who have no family. AIDS babies, Down's Syndrome babies, drug & alcohol babies, mongoloids and behaviorally challenged and mentally ill - not to mention the older, healthy, abandoned children who will probably never get adopted just because they are not brand-new, sweet-smelling, soft, gurgling infants.

The act that brings about life is treated abominably in this nation. Look at advertising - we are supposed to want it - need it - look it - act it - gotta have it! But oh, don't you dare engage in it unless you're married, financially secure, mentally sound and fully prepared for the sacrifices required - and this term cannot even approach the depth of the demands of raising children. Further, you are not supposed to know much about it - just enough to understand that one sperm plus one egg equals baby. Let's not educate our children in a slow, progressive manner about their bodies, about disease, about reasonable manners of healthy sexual behavior, about masturbation and other ways of delaying the progress to intercourse.

And now that intercourse can mean death, let's further insult "the most important resource to humans on the planet" - our youth - by not making barrier contraception available to them. I just cannot feel right in my gut about this AT ALL and cannot understand what some people are thinking when they deny knowledge and tools from their hormonally-charged children at an age when they mostly LIVE to defy their parents.

As much as I love and respect all life, I cannot feel right about denying the right to a safe abortion to any woman without a better sex education system in place in this country, and with the seeming apathy towards those children most in need of a family - those who are already born.

Women have been terminating pregnancies for almost as long as they have been getting pregnant, and it is no act to be taken lightly. Any woman I have ever known who has had an abortion felt not the slightest remorse for the act, yet felt helpless to make any other decision right for her and for the life inside of her.

I also, again, firmly believe our country was founded on TOLERANCE. We came here hoping to find a place where we could practice our personal and religious beliefs (or lack thereof) without prejudice. Have we changed?

 

[rmcrobertson]

I'm with shesulsa, and somehow I think that she and her sisters can be trusted to make a good decision for themselves--trusted at least as much as men can be trusted to make the decision for women.

For the 14th time: we already HAVE a compromise. Roe v. Wade was a compromise. The government restrictions amount to a compromise. The production of options, advice, support, etc., offers compromises.

This ain't about compromise.
It's...about...the...desire...of...men...to...take...the...right...to...control...one's...own...body...away...from...women.

The comparasion to the right of society to regulate murder is inaccurate, but very revealing of fundamental intent.

C'mahn, guys, be honest: you have religious beliefs that support these ideas, right? You have set notions about women's roles in life, right? You're uneasy about the idea of women's independence, right? You have doubts about sexual freedom and access to contraception, right? That's certainly the history of people arguing for these so-called compromises; what makes your arguments any different?

And above all, some of you folks believe that you should be empowered to impose your ideas--which cannot possibly be fundamentally grounded on science--upon everybody else, whether or not they agree.

There's a very good reason that Margaret Sanger and so many others saw reproductive rights as fundamental for women. Without that freedom, all the other rights of women--especially including the right to be free individuals--are imperilled.

There's a very good reason that fundamentalists of all religions do not want women to have reproductive freedom. They believe that God put them here to control women (the poor, lesser dears incapable of rational and moral thought! we must Help Them!) and they do not want to risk losing their power.

There's a very good reason, too, that some folks refuse to seek their compromises over reproduction in militating for the decent treatment of the millions of hungry, abused, ill-educated, poor kids in this country. It would be militating for a decent, just society--and some of y'all are too deeply wedded to capitalism and conservatism to go for that.

You want to help kids? Fine. As was just mentioned by shesulsa, "go out and adopt one or two children who have no family." There's your compromise: leave women the hell alone, as you would wish to be left alone, and go help people who need help. If some folks put ten percent of the energy, time and money into helping kids that they do into bitching about women's clinics, this'd be a better country.

Or, go militate for decent sex ed and access to Planned Parenthood. We know that'd drop the number of abortions pretty drastically. There's your compromise.

By the way, the other issue shesulsa correctly raises is that, guys, YOUR liberties and lives are at stake here. Growing up in a culture that has maintained prissy, stupid, regressive and infantile notions about sex, contraception, and education has not been good for any of us.