ATAR Notes: Forum
General Discussion => General Discussion Boards => Rants and Debate => Topic started by: geminii on June 06, 2017, 06:57:17 pm
-
Hi everyone!
Yes, I know this is an EXTREMELY sensitive topic...but I really wanted to get some of your thoughts on this as it is a very important issue. What is your stance on abortion? Are you pro-choice, pro-life, somewhere in between, undecided or apathetic, and why?
With the recent bill in NSW to decriminalise abortion rejected, it's definitely a big issue in our world today.
Looking forward to hearing everyone's views! :)
-
My view is that abortion is absolutely unacceptable unless the mother's life is in danger - in all other cases, abortion should definitely not be performed.
My basic reason for this is because it's wrong to kill babies. And I find it one of the most horrible things that anyone could do - to actually want to kill a helpless baby, who has no voice.
-
Just a reminder that the forum's code of conduct applies to all discussions. Thanks.
Page 2.
-
Just a reminder that the forum's code of conduct applies to all discussions. Thanks.
Page 2.
Hi Russ,
I'm unsure as to what you're referring to. Could you please quote the Code of Conduct here or paraphrase the relevant parts? Thanks.
-
Hi Russ,
I'm unsure as to what you're referring to. Could you please quote the Code of Conduct here or paraphrase the relevant parts? Thanks.
It wasn't directed towards you - it was a preemptive reminder :)
-
It wasn't directed towards you - it was a preemptive reminder :)
Ah! Cool, thanks, brenden :)
EDIT: So what does everyone think? Abortion, is it ethical/moral, should it be made legal, etc.?
-
In all honesty, I find this too difficult of a topic of debate to discuss. It seems to always come down to where you think life begins...and we can't really deduce that. Heck I can't even remember what I did two days ago, let alone try to discover when life really starts. Like I understand it if you have a conviction that life begins at conception...but on the other hand, we're assuming we know for certain that that is the case, which we don't... I know it sounds really boring (intellectually) for me to say this, but it's morally ambiguous/uncertain, because we just don't know enough.
For argument's sake, I'm right bang on the fence with this one, because I acknowledge that I'm limited by my perceptions as a human. I'm not saying I find it useless to discuss; I'm not averse to discussing ethics and morals with regards to this topic. I just don't think we can really have a conclusion to draw from to make any argument completely valid.
EDIT: I know it sounds quite contradictory what I'm saying as how I justified my stance could be applied to literally anything; I'm not saying I reject an objective truth behind this; but what I'm trying to say is I see both sides, and there isn't enough for me to choose or pick or say that I firmly believe this is the case etc. They both look equally shaky and my intuition freezes up. We don't know enough.
-
In all honesty, I find this too difficult of a topic of debate to discuss. It seems to always come down to where you think life begins...and we can't really deduce that. Heck I can't even remember what I did two days ago, let alone try to discover when life really starts. Like I understand it if you have a conviction that life begins at conception...but on the other hand, we're assuming we know for certain that that is the case, which we don't... I know it sounds really boring (intellectually) for me to say this, but it's morally ambiguous/uncertain, because we just don't know enough.
For argument's sake, I'm right bang on the fence with this one, because I acknowledge that I'm limited by my perceptions as a human. I'm not saying I find it useless to discuss; I'm not adverse to discussing ethics and morals with regards to this topic. I just don't think we can really have a conclusion to draw from to make any argument completely valid.
EDIT: I know it sounds quite contradictory what I'm saying as how I justified my stance could be applied to literally anything; I'm not saying I reject an objective truth behind this; but what I'm trying to say is I see both sides, and there isn't enough for me to choose or pick or say that I firmly believe this is the case etc. They both look equally shaky and my intuition freezes up. We don't know enough.
Really interesting post. So you have no moral intuition, whatsoever? Is that what you're saying, or are you saying that any stance is arbitrary, so it feels wrong to choose one (even if there is an inkling of intuition behind it?)
-
The thing is when it comes to the science, it seems pretty straight forward that life begins at conception, I think all the ambiguity has just arisen due to the politics around abortion. After conception the zygote, foetus etc. has different DNA to both the mother and father. If we found something on another planet with 23 pairs of chromosomes, we would be calling it life, so why is it different in the womb? In the womb a foetus is just a human being at a younger state of development, sure they are completely dependant on their mothers but so is a month old baby or toddler.
I am against the killing of any human life non dependant on the circumstance or their stage of development or ability for reason. Hence, I am ProLife and think it's immoral to play judge, jury and executioner on an innocent life.
For the argument that it empowers women to have the choice, it's flawed. Governments regulate, the actions of individuals all the time when they affect the lives of another individual eg. I can't drink and drive because I am endangering my passengers and other drivers. I am all for gender equality and there definitely needs to be more support, resources and information provided to women who are in a difficult situation where they are considering abortion. But the ending of another person's life should never be the solution to any problem. Well, thats my opinion I guess.
8/6/17
2315
Mod edit to remove factually inaccurate and misleading information regarding medical consequences of abortion.
-
The thing is when it comes to the science, it seems pretty straight forward that life begins at conception, I think all the ambiguity has just arisen due to the politics around abortion. After conception the zygote, foetus etc. has different DNA to both the mother and father. If we found something on another planet with 23 pairs of chromosomes, we would be calling it life, so why is it different in the womb? In the womb a foetus is just a human being at a younger state of development, sure they are completely dependant on their mothers but so is a month old baby or toddler.
I am against the killing of any human life non dependant on the circumstance or their stage of development or ability for reason. Hence, I am ProLife and think it's immoral to play judge, jury and executioner on an innocent life.
For the argument that it empowers women to have the choice, it's flawed. Governments regulate, the actions of individuals all the time when they affect the lives of another individual eg. I can't drink and drive because I am endangering my passengers and other drivers. Women who have an abortion are significantly more likely to suffer sleep disorders or mental illness like anxiety or depression. Many abortions lead to fertility problems years after the procedure has taken place. I am all for gender equality and there definitely needs to be more support, resources and information provided to women who are in a difficult situation where they are considering abortion. But the ending of another person's life should never be the solution to any problem. Well, thats my opinion I guess.
Welcome to the forums Younem!! I'm honestly not sure where I stand on the ProChoice vs ProLife debate, but just wanted to say I enjoyed reading your arguments - Very interesting indeed :)
-
Really interesting post. So you have no moral intuition, whatsoever? Is that what you're saying, or are you saying that any stance is arbitrary, so it feels wrong to choose one (even if there is an inkling of intuition behind it?)
I'm just not satisfied with what I see in front of me. I don't think all stance is arbitrary per se, strictly speaking, just all the ones I have heard, read and know about. If we're talking about the ones I know, and whether I'd feel bad for holding any one of them, then yes, I would, because I'd be half-lying to myself that I believe them and that in itself disturbs me greatly; partly, because I find it disrespectful that I'm not taking full responsibility for the beliefs I am publicly announcing as my own; and partly also, because of personal pride -- I don't wish to hold a belief I don't believe in completely. I can play the devil's advocate, or try to argue one side, but since this is asking my view -- I say, I just haven't found one yet. I'm on-hold, and I don't think I'll be moving from that spot any time soon.
This topic is probably the closest equivalent I could find to my experiences with the process of essay-writing. There's just always something else. And it bothers me to no end because it's so blatant/conspicuous the moment you sound it out. And that doesn't happen very often for me. I mean at least with essays we can generally narrow our own scope; but with abortion, you just can't avoid the bigger questions, and they're all so fuzzy and overwhelming for me.
-
peterpiper, you put into words so many of the nameless frustrations and confusions I face. Like, wow. So much in common.
Some random, not necessarily moral or well-thought-out musings:
My perspective is very warped here. I automatically lean towards pro-choice because, rather than feeling that abortion is "killing" an innocent being, I feel that giving birth is "inflicting" life on an innocent being. :P
Basically, I feel like abortion is doing the poor kid a kindness, because they never have to live. Sure, they miss out on many, many happy things - but they don't have a consciousness that realises they're missing out, so it causes no pain, and they also don't have to face the pain that life causes.
Especially a life where they are less wanted - abortion often occurs with unwanted pregnancies, and the child would be statistically less likely to be born into a stable family where they could receive the full love and support they need to develop fully. (Thus unhappier lives, less pro-social members of society, etc. ON AVERAGE.)
Also, overpopulation: better to "decrease the surplus population" (:P) before it's born, than to have more people dying of hunger or w/e once they're loved by others and have a full consciousness. I just feel like our focus should be more on saving the lives that are already in full swing, rather than the ones that haven't really started, y'feel?
-
I'm a bit on the fence with this one too. I believe that ultimately it is the woman's choice in this. She has the rights to her own body and if she wishes to get an abortion then so be it. But I'm also pro-life, in a way in such that if a woman wishes to get an abortion I would support them in a way that encourages them to not go through with it. I would ultimately offer to care for her through the pregnancy, pay for the needs of the child and herself and I would suggest adoption. I would love nothing more than for the life of this unborn baby to be saved but at the end of the day, her body, her choice.
-
Interesting. Do the rights of a woman's convenience usurp the baby's right to life?
For me the answer is a simple no. When there is the life of a baby hanging in the balance, a woman saying 'I don't have enough money' or 'I don't want to have a baby right now' isn't a justifiable excuse to kill that baby. If she didn't want to get pregnant she should have used contraceptives or just not have even gone near a situation in which she might become pregnant.
-
What are people's views on abortion for medical reasons, but not for the mother, for the baby? For example, say it was proven at an early stage that the child would be born with a heart defect that only had a 10% chance of survival, and even then, would result in lots of painful surgeries and other complications (purely making this situation up). Genuinely curious, would your views 'soften' in this case? And if so, at what point do the complications become serious enough to warrant the exception?
-
What are people's views on abortion for medical reasons, but not for the mother, for the baby? For example, say it was proven at an early stage that the child would be born with a heart defect that only had a 10% chance of survival, and even then, would result in lots of painful surgeries and other complications (purely making this situation up). Genuinely curious, would your views 'soften' in this case? And if so, at what point do the complications become serious enough to warrant the exception?
If this was the case, I would say the baby should still be born. Yes, it has a defect and may go through many painful surgeries, but I don't think it's our place to play God and decide when and if a child should die. Yes, this is a religious argument (I'm religious - Hindu) and I think that if a baby's time comes to die, then that should be God's decision, not ours.
For an example, my friend had a family friend who was born with a heart condition (Hypoplastic Left Heart Syndrome), and his parents (thankfully) decided not to abort him simply because he had a heart condition. He was given a very small chance of survival. After many surgeries, he passed away at the age of 4 in 2015.
I'm glad he was given the chance to live, and I'm sure his parents were too. He was a delightful little kid, and it wouldn't have been fair to take away his entire life when his life expectancy had already been diminished significantly.
In cases such as ectopic pregnancies, I think abortion is okay, because yes, it is killing the baby, but it is saving the mother's life. Allowing an ectopic pregnancy to proceed would result in two deaths in some cases - and one life is better than none.
-
What are people's views on abortion for medical reasons, but not for the mother, for the baby? For example, say it was proven at an early stage that the child would be born with a heart defect that only had a 10% chance of survival, and even then, would result in lots of painful surgeries and other complications (purely making this situation up). Genuinely curious, would your views 'soften' in this case? And if so, at what point do the complications become serious enough to warrant the exception?
In that case, yes.
If the baby is likely to die in say 1 yr or not even last one year, then I would definitely agree on abortion. ALso the baby will be in pain, or in some sort of situation where they cannot experience life.
-
Interesting thread here. To be honest, I don't know where I stand anymore. Initially, when I was younger, I was pro-life because I thought killing was wrong. But, then again, I became pro-choice because "everyone else was". Now, I really don't know. It's a combination of "peer pressure" and personal beliefs. I have more to say but I'll add to this later...:)
-
I just realised my position is neither pro-life nor pro-choice, it's essentially anti-life in a nutshell hahahahahaha
-
Interesting thread here. To be honest, I don't know where I stand anymore. Initially, when I was younger, I was pro-life because I thought killing was wrong. But, then again, I became pro-choice because "everyone else was". Now, I really don't know. It's a combination of "peer pressure" and personal beliefs. I have more to say but I'll add to this later...:)
I've experienced a similar situation to you - except the opposite way. I used to be more pro-choice because I thought it would be better to kill the baby than bring it into unfortunate circumstances, but then I realised that killing is wrong, unless in self-defence (hence why I believe that if the baby is 'harming' the mother, then it should be aborted). Propably took me a while to understand because when I first started thinking about whether abortion is right or wrong, it was in school where everyone told everyone it was okay, so automatically I thought that too. Overtime I realised it really is one of the worst possible crimes you could commit.
I just realised my position is neither pro-life nor pro-choice, it's essentially anti-life in a nutshell hahahahahaha
What do you mean heids?
-
I think the debate goes very different ways depending on someone's religious stance. If someone's number one reasoning for being anti-abortion, or pro-life, is religious grounds, then it's difficult to "discuss" without actually discussing religion more than abortion.
Having the debate between two atheists with opposing thoughts on abortion, or two Christians with opposing thoughts on abortion, would be really interesting because a similar moral background is being drawn upon. See, I'm an atheist and I've had this discussion with an Opus Dei Christian before, and his sole reasoning was that it goes against what his Church advises, it's not his role to play God, and all life is sacred. As for me, I don't have a Church to advise me, I don't follow a God, and the ruling of life being sacred therefore doesn't come from a place of authority for me.
Of course there are lots of arguments for or against abortion that go outside the realm of religion - but if the religious argument sits at the core of a debate it's difficult to have that core-common to bounce from.
Personally, I was disappointed that the bill didn't go through in NSW but I expected nothing different.
-
I think the debate goes very different ways depending on someone's religious stance. If someone's number one reasoning for being anti-abortion, or pro-life, is religious grounds, then it's difficult to "discuss" without actually discussing religion more than abortion.
Having the debate between two atheists with opposing thoughts on abortion, or two Christians with opposing thoughts on abortion, would be really interesting because a similar moral background is being drawn upon. See, I'm an atheist and I've had this discussion with an Opus Dei Christian before, and his sole reasoning was that it goes against what his Church advises, it's not his role to play God, and all life is sacred. As for me, I don't have a Church to advise me, I don't follow a God, and the ruling of life being sacred therefore doesn't come from a place of authority for me.
Of course there are lots of arguments for or against abortion that go outside the realm of religion - but if the religious argument sits at the core of a debate it's difficult to have that core-common to bounce from.
Personally, I was disappointed that the bill didn't go through in NSW but I expected nothing different.
I do think religion plays a large role in influencing many individuals in their stance on abortion. Having studied abortion for Islam their reasoning seems reasonable, especially regarding situations if the mother is in danger.
I think a lot of people try justify abortion as NOT murder/killing but I see it as in any way still as the killing of another being. It's the matter of justifying the ending of life from there.
-
I've experienced a similar situation to you - except the opposite way. I used to be more pro-choice because I thought it would be better to kill the baby than bring it into unfortunate circumstances, but then I realised that killing is wrong, unless in self-defence (hence why I believe that if the baby is 'harming' the mother, then it should be aborted). Propably took me a while to understand because when I first started thinking about whether abortion is right or wrong, it was in school where everyone told everyone it was okay, so automatically I thought that too. Overtime I realised it really is one of the worst possible crimes you could commit.
Particularly on your last point there, one of the worst possible crimes you could commit - I think that is interesting. Like, that's a huge call to make isn't it?
Like, I can understand being against abortion. I'm personally for it - Well, at least in the sense that I was also hoping the Bill would go through. As I said earlier, I don't have a 100% pro choice or pro life outlook, and additionally, I don't think anyone is "for" abortion. Like, pro choice advocates aren't saying, "Yay, abortion, how fantastic."
However, a lot of people I know are against abortion and I can understand why they are (as Elyse said, usually religious, the place of religion in lawmaking is a debate for another day...)
But to say that abortion is one of the worst possible crimes you can commit is a huge call. A member of my family has had an abortion - She's a fantastic human being. Does lots of good things in the world. What you've said puts her in a similar bin as, say, the perpetrator of the recent terrorist attacks in Manchester. Of the Catholic priests that abused their positions to sexually assault young children. Of Kristi Abrahams, who abused her daughter for years, killed her at 6 years old, stuffed her body in a suitcase and buried her in bushland. Or, a personal one that always shakes me to the core: My Mum knew a young autistic boy. He wet the bed one night, and his parents (as punishment), put him naked in an ice cold bath, with the air conditioner on and fans on high, on a 0 degree night in Winter. He froze to death, for something that was completely out of his control.
When I think of the worst possible crimes you can commit, these are what I think of. I personally get really uncomfortable even hearing the suggestion that women who get abortions can be compared to these sorts of individuals...
-
I do think religion plays a large role in influencing many individuals in their stance on abortion. Having studied abortion for Islam their reasoning seems reasonable, especially regarding situations if the mother is in danger.
I think a lot of people try justify abortion as NOT murder/killing but I see it as in any way still as the killing of another being. It's the matter of justifying the ending of life from there.
Yes, love the SOR relevance!
The fact of the matter is: abortions will happen whether they are illegal or legal. By making abortions legal, we can promote the safe procedure of abortions. Also, the bill proposed in NSW wanted safe zones around clinics. If nothing else: THIS. I've been past a clinic in Surry Hills that has BULLIES out the front protesting anti-abortion. We all have liberties: the liberty to protest, the liberty to opinion, but be civil with your liberties. Recognise that tormenting someone going for an abortion outside the clinic is not a simple exercise in opinion and protest, but often it's literal bullying of a complete stranger. So, although I would've liked the entire bill to go through (it was incredibly thought out, in my opinion), I think the safe zone around a clinic is really important.
-
Particularly on your last point there, one of the worst possible crimes you could commit - I think that is interesting. Like, that's a huge call to make isn't it?
Like, I can understand being against abortion. I'm personally for it - Well, at least in the sense that I was also hoping the Bill would go through. As I said earlier, I don't have a 100% pro choice or pro life outlook, and additionally, I don't think anyone is "for" abortion. Like, pro choice advocates aren't saying, "Yay, abortion, how fantastic."
However, a lot of people I know are against abortion and I can understand why they are (as Elyse said, usually religious, the place of religion in lawmaking is a debate for another day...)
But to say that abortion is one of the worst possible crimes you can commit is a huge call. A member of my family has had an abortion - She's a fantastic human being. Does lots of good things in the world. What you've said puts her in a similar bin as, say, the perpetrator of the recent terrorist attacks in Manchester. Of the Catholic priests that abused their positions to sexually assault young children. Of Kristi Abrahams, who abused her daughter for years, killed her at 6 years old, stuffed her body in a suitcase and buried her in bushland. Or, a personal one that always shakes me to the core: My Mum knew a young autistic boy. He wet the bed one night, and his parents (as punishment), put him naked in an ice cold bath, with the air conditioner on and fans on high, on a 0 degree night in Winter. He froze to death, for something that was completely out of his control.
When I think of the worst possible crimes you can commit, these are what I think of. I personally get really uncomfortable even hearing the suggestion that women who get abortions can be compared to these sorts of individuals...
I do stand by my comment that it is one of the worst possible crimes you could commit. Unlike crimes such as murdering an ex-girlfriend/boyfriend - where one person may be guilty of cheating, blackmailing, etc., the murder of a foetus is the murder of the most innocent life on the planet. It literally has not even got a chance to live its life.
I'm not saying other murders aren't bad - what I'm saying is, the murder of a foetus is so much crueller. You're not killing someone who may have already been on earth for 5, 10, 20, 40 years, and has had a chance to experience life. You're killing someone who hasn't even been able to see the sun yet, or breathe fresh air, simply because, I don't know, 'it was a mistake' or 'I can't afford it'.
While that six year old girl who was killed and buried, that little boy that froze to death, and the victims of the terrrorist attacks in Manchester all had a chance to experience life, those killed by abortion never did. It's taking away the most basic right of a human being - the right to life.
I think the debate goes very different ways depending on someone's religious stance. If someone's number one reasoning for being anti-abortion, or pro-life, is religious grounds, then it's difficult to "discuss" without actually discussing religion more than abortion.
Having the debate between two atheists with opposing thoughts on abortion, or two Christians with opposing thoughts on abortion, would be really interesting because a similar moral background is being drawn upon. See, I'm an atheist and I've had this discussion with an Opus Dei Christian before, and his sole reasoning was that it goes against what his Church advises, it's not his role to play God, and all life is sacred. As for me, I don't have a Church to advise me, I don't follow a God, and the ruling of life being sacred therefore doesn't come from a place of authority for me.
Of course there are lots of arguments for or against abortion that go outside the realm of religion - but if the religious argument sits at the core of a debate it's difficult to have that core-common to bounce from.
Personally, I was disappointed that the bill didn't go through in NSW but I expected nothing different.
Of course it's not my only argument, I just felt it fitted well for the argument I was replying to.
My main argument is, it's wrong to kill babies. If you can prove to me that killing babies is okay, I'll change my mind and become pro-choice, but for now I'm advocating for life, not death.
The fact of the matter is: abortions will happen whether they are illegal or legal. By making abortions legal, we can promote the safe procedure of abortions. Also, the bill proposed in NSW wanted safe zones around clinics. If nothing else: THIS. I've been past a clinic in Surry Hills that has BULLIES out the front protesting anti-abortion. We all have liberties: the liberty to protest, the liberty to opinion, but be civil with your liberties. Recognise that tormenting someone going for an abortion outside the clinic is not a simple exercise in opinion and protest, but often it's literal bullying of a complete stranger. So, although I would've liked the entire bill to go through (it was incredibly thought out, in my opinion), I think the safe zone around a clinic is really important.
Why is it bullying to express your opinions?
Also, I found this: https://www.vice.com/en_au/article/hanging-out-with-sydneys-most-dedicated-anti-abortion-protesters
So holding up signs saying you're anti-abortion is bullying...but leaving a pig's head for the pro-lifers to see isn't? ???
-
Of course it's not my only argument, I just felt it fitted well for the argument I was replying to.
My main argument is, it's wrong to kill babies. If you can prove to me that killing babies is okay, I'll change my mind and become pro-choice, but for now I'm advocating for life, not death.
I wasn't aiming my comment at you - I just wanted to point out that the basis of this discussion will always be difficult because it's a matter of morality, science, and legality, all of which come from different stand points. I'm pro-choice, and I've invested a lot of energy into discussions about abortions, and usually it becomes futile when the contrasting opinion comes from a standpoint of religious morality. It's not because that is a wrong point, it's just because it's a point I simply can't relate to so we have to kind of come to a "agree to disagree" situation unless the debate is prepared to turn into a "how much should religion come in to politics" or "is God even real?" debate, which has it's own kind of merit as a stand alone debate.
Out of curiosity, (and this is to you, Geminii :) )do you have an opinion against the RU486 pill?
Edit: sorry adding a bit because I missed a question from you
Why is it bullying to express your opinions?
If it was as simple as expressing an opinion in a non-hostile, non-aggressive, non-condescending way, it wouldn't be bullying. And obviously people do protest civically a lot of the time. But, as I walked past the Surry Hills clinic that time there was name-calling "baby-murderer" "disgraceful human" and the likes of it. That's bullying.
-
honestly, it seems to depend on whether you believe the life of a dependant being is worth less than that of a independant one? some people believe it's a life worthy of protection the second conception occurs, some people believe that until it's fully developed consciously (ie. can register and feel pain) it's only a vessel, some people are kind of in the middle. i feel like it's quite interesting if you believe the former: does that mean if a pregnant woman is killed it's a double murder? can't figure out aus law on this, but a lot of places seem to define it as such only if the fetus can exist outside of the mother at the time of murder, so does that mean abortion should be legal until the fetus reaches that point of development? it's super interesting tbh.
I've experienced a similar situation to you - except the opposite way. I used to be more pro-choice because I thought it would be better to kill the baby than bring it into unfortunate circumstances, but then I realised that killing is wrong, unless in self-defence (hence why I believe that if the baby is 'harming' the mother, then it should be aborted).
so, if you were bringing the child into severe poverty or a possibly abusive household or knew it would have birth defects which would cause it (them?) to live in constant pain, etc etc, would you consider that preferable to abortion? do you think there could be situations when bringing a child to life would be a worse outcome for them, or is it just kind of always better to have the child and weather the consequences as best you can? (: this isn't meant to be attacking or anything, i'm just v intrigued haha.
Why is it bullying to express your opinions?
[/s]
have you seen how people like that picket? it tends to involve a lot of 'you're going to hell' signs and verbal abuse, which understandably is fairly unpalatable if you're already shaken up by having made the difficult decision to have an abortion. i've only heard of two instances where it got physically violent, though, (america wyd) which isn't enough to generalise. it's bullying to express your opinions in a way that intimidates or inhibits others and a lot of protestors do just that. i don't see anything wrong with expressing your opinions, but there are better ways to do it. like, god, if you have to picket, do it outside a government building because then at least someone who can be influenced by your decision might have a chance at seeing you.
-
I do stand by my comment that it is one of the worst possible crimes you could commit. Unlike crimes such as murdering an ex-girlfriend/boyfriend - where one person may be guilty of cheating, blackmailing, etc., the murder of a foetus is the murder of the most innocent life on the planet. It literally has not even got a chance to live its life.
I'm not saying other murders aren't bad - what I'm saying is, the murder of a foetus is so much crueller. You're not killing someone who may have already been on earth for 5, 10, 20, 40 years, and has had a chance to experience life. You're killing someone who hasn't even been able to see the sun yet, or breathe fresh air, simply because, I don't know, 'it was a mistake' or 'I can't afford it'.
While that six year old girl who was killed and buried, that little boy that froze to death, and the victims of the terrrorist attacks in Manchester all had a chance to experience life, those killed by abortion never did. It's taking away the most basic right of a human being - the right to life.
To be honest, as much respect as I have for your right to have your opinion and express it as you choose, the fact that you are saying that abortion is 'crueller' than the pre-meditated murder of a partner is something I really can't be compatible to even begin to discuss. I'm not sure whether you are insinuating abortion is crueller than those things I listed because the 'victims haven't experienced life yet.' If you are - Well, I think you are very brave to say that. The idea that a woman who was raped and impregnated, who chooses to have an abortion, is on the same criminal level as a terrorist bomber - That's, yeah.
-
I wasn't aiming my comment at you - I just wanted to point out that the basis of this discussion will always be difficult because it's a matter of morality, science, and legality, all of which come from different stand points. I'm pro-choice, and I've invested a lot of energy into discussions about abortions, and usually it becomes futile when the contrasting opinion comes from a standpoint of religious morality. It's not because that is a wrong point, it's just because it's a point I simply can't relate to so we have to kind of come to a "agree to disagree" situation unless the debate is prepared to turn into a "how much should religion come in to politics" or "is God even real?" debate, which has it's own kind of merit as a stand alone debate.
Out of curiosity, (and this is to you, Geminii :) )do you have an opinion against the RU486 "morning after" pill?
Thanks, elyse :) Yes, I'm against the morning after pill. I wasn't too knowledgeable about it but I did some research (with the website you linked and a few others) and I previously thought it prevented pregnancy, now I realise it ends it and can be used by up to 50 days from the beginning of the pregnancy. So yes, if it's killed the baby then I'm against it.
-
Thanks, elyse :) Yes, I'm against the morning after pill. I wasn't too knowledgeable about it but I did some research (with the website you linked and a few others) and I previously thought it prevented pregnancy, now I realise it ends it and can be used by up to 50 days from the beginning of the pregnancy. So yes, if it's killed the baby then I'm against it.
Are you calling the "thing" a "baby" from the moment of the egg being fertilised? Or is a "baby" in your terms further down the track?
-
I do stand by my comment that it is one of the worst possible crimes you could commit. Unlike crimes such as murdering an ex-girlfriend/boyfriend - where one person may be guilty of cheating, blackmailing, etc., the murder of a foetus is the murder of the most innocent life on the planet. It literally has not even got a chance to live its life.
I'm not saying other murders aren't bad - what I'm saying is, the murder of a foetus is so much crueller. You're not killing someone who may have already been on earth for 5, 10, 20, 40 years, and has had a chance to experience life. You're killing someone who hasn't even been able to see the sun yet, or breathe fresh air, simply because, I don't know, 'it was a mistake' or 'I can't afford it'.
While that six year old girl who was killed and buried, that little boy that froze to death, and the victims of the terrrorist attacks in Manchester all had a chance to experience life, those killed by abortion never did. It's taking away the most basic right of a human being - the right to life.
So here is where you and I fundamentally disagree.
How is it cruel to take life from something that has no consciousness to realise what life is? I'd personally say it's far crueler for both the person, and their friends/family, to kill them at the age of 20. If you have, say, 100 people who love your personality, it hurts them far more if you die at that point than if you died before you were born. And if you hadn't been born, they wouldn't have been "less happy" because you weren't there; they would have filled the gap with other friends. Plus, the person themselves can feel the pain of knowing everything is about to end, whereas without consciousness in the first place, they don't realise they're missing a thing.
And in using birth control/contraception at all, you're doing just the same thing, just a tiny step earlier (so it's theoretically even worse hahaha): stopping countless new people from being born, thus robbing them of life.
I prefer the approach of improving the quality of life of those currently alive, rather than focusing on creating more people. Living in misery is worse than never getting the chance to live.
-
To be honest, as much respect as I have for your right to have your opinion and express it as you choose, the fact that you are saying that abortion is 'crueller' than the pre-meditated murder of a partner is something I really can't be compatible to even begin to discuss. I'm not sure whether you are insinuating abortion is crueller than those things I listed because the 'victims haven't experienced life yet.' If you are - Well, I think you are very brave to say that. The idea that a woman who was raped and impregnated, who chooses to have an abortion, is on the same criminal level as a terrorist bomber - That's, yeah.
I also think there is some cognitive dissonance happening here.
To believe that abortion is as reprehensible as acts such as terrorism, murder, and torture and then walk around in a society where you probably encounter women everyday who have had abortions requires either some form of cognitive dissonance or a genuine belief that many of the people you meet are despicable people on par with terrorists and sociopathic serial killers.
-
And in using birth control/contraception at all, you're doing just the same thing, just a tiny step earlier (so it's theoretically even worse hahaha): stopping countless new people from being born, thus robbing them of life.
Interested in this? Can you flesh it out a bit more? :)
I prefer the approach of improving the quality of life of those currently alive, rather than focusing on creating more people. Living in misery is worse than never getting the chance to live.
Nice perspective!
-
Thanks patricia for all your questions! :)
so, if you were bringing the child into severe poverty or a possibly abusive household or knew it would have birth defects which would cause it (them?) to live in constant pain, etc etc, would you consider that preferable to abortion? do you think there could be situations when bringing a child to life would be a worse outcome for them, or is it just kind of always better to have the child and weather the consequences as best you can? (: this isn't meant to be attacking or anything, i'm just v intrigued haha.
So if you saw a man/woman walking down the street, and I was going to stab them, would you try to stop me? I mean, I would assume so, because murder is wrong, right?
What if they're in really difficult circumstances or living in poverty? As soon as they walk out of your eyesight you'll likely forget about them. You're not going to offer to pay their bills, their taxes. You just don't want to see them get murdered!
(Also I'm sorry if I sound attack-y here, when I say 'you' I mean people in general, I don't mean you specifically :))
have you seen how people like that picket? it tends to involve a lot of 'you're going to hell' signs and verbal abuse, which understandably is fairly unpalatable if you're already shaken up by having made the difficult decision to have an abortion. i've only heard of two instances where it got physically violent, though, (america wyd) which isn't enough to generalise. it's bullying to express your opinions in a way that intimidates or inhibits others and a lot of protestors do just that. i don't see anything wrong with expressing your opinions, but there are better ways to do it. like, god, if you have to picket, do it outside a government building because then at least someone who can be influenced by your decision might have a chance at seeing you.
Ok so the signs aren't a problem, if you don't like what they say, don't look. You can't get beaten up by a sign.
With the verbal abuse, remember when you were in primary school and your mum would tell you, 'if someone says something mean to you or bullies you, just walk away'. It's funny how we seem to have forgotten that as we've grown older. If a woman decides to get an abortion, these people have every right to express their views and aim to change the woman's mind. Shouting 'baby murderer' - which, technically, would be correct - isn't going to kill you. I agree that it's not a nice thing to say, but if a woman has decided to end the life of her child then she should expect to face some criticism.
To be honest, as much respect as I have for your right to have your opinion and express it as you choose, the fact that you are saying that abortion is 'crueller' than the pre-meditated murder of a partner is something I really can't be compatible to even begin to discuss. I'm not sure whether you are insinuating abortion is crueller than those things I listed because the 'victims haven't experienced life yet.' If you are - Well, I think you are very brave to say that. The idea that a woman who was raped and impregnated, who chooses to have an abortion, is on the same criminal level as a terrorist bomber - That's, yeah.
Abortion is also pre-meditated murder.
We shouldn't be asking the question, is abortion better or worse than a terrorist/abusive parent/abusive ex. Murder is murder is murder.
What we should be asking is, is it right or wrong? I get that you're sort of on the fence about this topic but do you find yourself swaying more to the abortion-is-ok side or abortion-is-bad side?
Are you calling the "thing" a "baby" from the moment of the egg being fertilised? Or is a "baby" in your terms further down the track?
Yes, from the moment the egg is fertilised, it has the potential to develop into a fully formed human.
-
Abortion is also pre-meditated murder.
We shouldn't be asking the question, is abortion better or worse than a terrorist/abusive parent/abusive ex. Murder is murder is murder
In ethics, we call that " deontology" where you cannot break the rules.
E.g. "Any murder is bad".
What others are looking at is Kanteon ethics is where you look at the greater good and go beyond "this is right" or "this is wrong".
We measure other things... such as "The amount of pain on the kid in the future (if they will be forever ill) or if a mother is in pain.
-
I just don't think abortion is murder. Murder is the unlawful killing of a human with intent. A fertilised egg is not a human,
Yes, from the moment the egg is fertilised, it has the potential to develop into a fully formed human.
It has the potential to be a human - but it is not a human.
I'm trying to wrap my head around the idea that the intentional killing of innocent strangers in a terrorist attack is comparable to the removal of cells from a womb? I can't see those two on the same level at all. I'm reading your comments, it's not like I'm not open to the idea, I'm trying to find parts of your points to empathise with but I can't. Abortion is not murder in my opinion. And abortion is not comparable to the malice of terrorism. ESPECIALLY, because majority of abortions do not come from a place of malice.
-
In ethics, we call that " deontology" where you cannot break the rules.
E.g. "Any murder is bad".
What others are looking at is Kanteon ethics is where you look at the greater good and go beyond "this is right" or "this is wrong".
We measure other things... such as "The amount of pain on the kid in the future (if they will be forever ill) or if a mother is in pain.
I haven't heard these terms before - thanks for sharing! *Googles for more info*
-
Murder is murder is murder.
Life isn't that black and white. There are SO many cases where it's not this straightforward.
Classic ethical dilemma - and though it's unrealistic the equivalents happen IRL:
You have a chance to change the out-of-control train to a different line, so it kills only one person rather than five. Is that murder? You have the chance to push a huge heavyset man in the way of the train which will slow it down so it won't run over five other people. Is that murder?
How about murder within wars, the death sentence, or killing someone to stop them killing others?
If you see someone stabbing someone else, and don't intervene, is that murder? How about if you know that a planned murder is to happen and you decide not to go and intervene?
Like, seriously, so many ways that prove that this is a very shades-of-grey moral topic, innately.
-
We shouldn't be asking the question, is abortion better or worse than a terrorist/abusive parent/abusive ex. Murder is murder is murder.
Yes, from the moment the egg is fertilised, it has the potential to develop into a fully formed human.
If murder is murder, why do people eat animals or kill animals to protect crops? (if they are anti abortion too). Those same people call for rapists to die or terrorists to die.
That is clearly a ethical inconsistency as "murder is bad " right?
I know it is a bit of a tangent, but I hope you get my point.
Most people here run on Kant's theories which is that things should be done for the greatest of society. E.g. Baby / human in pain for the rest of life > abortion in terms of pain.
-
Life isn't that black and white. There are SO many cases where it's not this straightforward.
Classic ethical dilemma - and though it's unrealistic the equivalents happen IRL:
You have a chance to change the out-of-control train to a different line, so it kills only one person rather than five. Is that murder? You have the chance to push a huge heavyset man in the way of the train which will slow it down so it won't run over five other people. Is that murder?
How about murder within wars, the death sentence, or killing someone to stop them killing others?
If you see someone stabbing someone else, and don't intervene, is that murder? How about if you know that a planned murder is to happen and you decide not to go and intervene?
Like, seriously, so many ways that prove that this is a very shades-of-grey moral topic, innately.
You're right - even in our legal system we see the different times when murder is mitigated to manslaughter - provocation, automatism, etc. These are controversial in their own right, but they do get due appreciation in the legal system. Because, "murder is murder" doesn't hold water when applied to every circumstance.
-
Abortion is also pre-meditated murder.
We shouldn't be asking the question, is abortion better or worse than a terrorist/abusive parent/abusive ex. Murder is murder is murder.
What we should be asking is, is it right or wrong? I get that you're sort of on the fence about this topic but do you find yourself swaying more to the abortion-is-ok side or abortion-is-bad side?
Saying "murder is murder" is putting women who get raped and impregnated, then choose to get an abortion, in the same category as a terrorist. Whether you want to do that or not, that is what it is.
I'm absolutely abortion-is-ok in the sense that I am in favour of law changes that make abortions safer and prevent women from being abused/victimised :) is it as simple as "Abortion is legal at any point under any circumstance?" No, I personally don't think so, but yeah - Definitely I'm in the abortion-is-ok camp :)
-
Thanks patricia for all your questions! :)
So if you saw a man/woman walking down the street, and I was going to stab them, would you try to stop me? I mean, I would assume so, because murder is wrong, right?
What if they're in really difficult circumstances or living in poverty? As soon as they walk out of your eyesight you'll likely forget about them. You're not going to offer to pay their bills, their taxes. You just don't want to see them get murdered!
(Also I'm sorry if I sound attack-y here, when I say 'you' I mean people in general, I don't mean you specifically :))
Ok so the signs aren't a problem, if you don't like what they say, don't look. You can't get beaten up by a sign.
With the verbal abuse, remember when you were in primary school and your mum would tell you, 'if someone says something mean to you or bullies you, just walk away'. It's funny how we seem to have forgotten that as we've grown older. If a woman decides to get an abortion, these people have every right to express their views and aim to change the woman's mind. Shouting 'baby murderer' - which, technically, would be correct - isn't going to kill you. I agree that it's not a nice thing to say, but if a woman has decided to end the life of her child then she should expect to face some criticism.
Abortion is also pre-meditated murder.
We shouldn't be asking the question, is abortion better or worse than a terrorist/abusive parent/abusive ex. Murder is murder is murder.
What we should be asking is, is it right or wrong? I get that you're sort of on the fence about this topic but do you find yourself swaying more to the abortion-is-ok side or abortion-is-bad side?
Yes, from the moment the egg is fertilised, it has the potential to develop into a fully formed human.
Completely agree with your point on how abortion is murder. There is no dispute in my opinion for that. It is the ending of the workings of a human life.
Where I find the conflict is whether permitting the act of abortion is justifiable. I think the idea of the lesser of two evils applies here. If a circumstance presented itself whereby the mothers life was in danger then I would see abortion as the more "humane" option to choose. Another example would be if some woman accidentally got pregnant and wanted an abortion. I would see that as immoral and would deny it.
Do I think abortion should be allowed? No
Do I think abortion is murder? Yes
Do I think abortion is as bad as a terrorist? No. I think it's unfair to draw that comparison, while they're both in essence the ending of a human life one is with more malicious intent then the other and therefore considered a greater evil.
Interesting discussion ya'll
-
Saying "murder is murder" is putting women who get raped and impregnated, then choose to get an abortion, in the same category as a terrorist. Whether you want to do that or not, that is what it is.
I'm absolutely abortion-is-ok in the sense that I am in favour of law changes that make abortions safer and prevent women from being abused/victimised :) is it as simple as "Abortion is legal at any point under any circumstance?" No, I personally don't think so, but yeah - Definitely I'm in the abortion-is-ok camp :)
Agreed as well. If nothing is going to stop those wanting abortions you may as well let them do it safely and reduce the risks. It's an immoral act but doing it properly is the less evil practice imo
-
So here is where you and I fundamentally disagree.
How is it cruel to take life from something that has no consciousness to realise what life is? I'd personally say it's far crueler for both the person, and their friends/family, to kill them at the age of 20. If you have, say, 100 people who love your personality, it hurts them far more if you die at that point than if you died before you were born. And if you hadn't been born, they wouldn't have been "less happy" because you weren't there; they would have filled the gap with other friends. Plus, the person themselves can feel the pain of knowing everything is about to end, whereas without consciousness in the first place, they don't realise they're missing a thing.
And in using birth control/contraception at all, you're doing just the same thing, just a tiny step earlier (so it's theoretically even worse hahaha): stopping countless new people from being born, thus robbing them of life.
I prefer the approach of improving the quality of life of those currently alive, rather than focusing on creating more people. Living in misery is worse than never getting the chance to live.
I understand you may think killing someone at an older age is worse than killing them in the womb - but do you believe that killing them in the womb is wrong, or do you think it's perfectly okay?
I also think there is some cognitive dissonance happening here.
To believe that abortion is as reprehensible as acts such as terrorism, murder, and torture and then walk around in a society where you probably encounter women everyday who have had abortions requires either some form of cognitive dissonance or a genuine belief that many of the people you meet are despicable people on par with terrorists and sociopathic serial killers.
All murder is bad, if I think abortion is wrong and then meet people who have had abortions, what am I supposed to do? If I express my opinion, it's bullying according to elysepopplewell. If I don't say anything, it's cognitive dissonance according to you. I don't have a meltdown and need to go to my 'safe space' every time I meet someone who has had an abortion.
I just don't think abortion is murder. Murder is the unlawful killing of a human with intent. A fertilised egg is not a human, It has the potential to be a human - but it is not a human.
When do you define someone being a human then?
I'm trying to wrap my head around the idea that the intentional killing of innocent strangers in a terrorist attack is comparable to the removal of cells from a womb? I can't see those two on the same level at all. I'm reading your comments, it's not like I'm not open to the idea, I'm trying to find parts of your points to empathise with but I can't. Abortion is not murder in my opinion. And abortion is not comparable to the malice of terrorism.
People are misunderstanding my comments - a life is a life. A murder is a murder.
In 2015, 2 people in Australia died as a result of a terrorist attack.
In 2015, 80-90,000 abortions were performed.
The scale of the babies killed was far greater than the people killed in the terrorist attacks. I am looking at facts, not feelings. The number of babies aborted was 42,500 times the number of those killed in terrorist attacks.
What I am saying, is, that yes, terrorist attacks are obviously horrible and should be condemned - but the murder of innocent babies, by the tens of thousands and on a much greater scale than those killed in terrorist attacks - should be condemned too.
If murder is murder, why do people eat animals or kill animals to protect crops? (if they are anti abortion too). Those same people call for rapists to die or terrorists to die.
That is clearly a ethical inconsistency as "murder is bad " right?
I think eating animals is wrong, if you couldn't tell by my signature (:P). Killing animals to protect crops is ok because it is an act of self-defence - if you don't do it, you could starve.
Life isn't that black and white. There are SO many cases where it's not this straightforward.
Classic ethical dilemma - and though it's unrealistic the equivalents happen IRL:
You have a chance to change the out-of-control train to a different line, so it kills only one person rather than five. Is that murder? You have the chance to push a huge heavyset man in the way of the train which will slow it down so it won't run over five other people. Is that murder?
How about murder within wars, the death sentence, or killing someone to stop them killing others?
If you see someone stabbing someone else, and don't intervene, is that murder? How about if you know that a planned murder is to happen and you decide not to go and intervene?
Like, seriously, so many ways that prove that this is a very shades-of-grey moral topic, innately.
Yes, all of that is murder, obviously. In a moral dilemma like the train scenario, you have to make a judgement call. Where the lives of five are compared to one, you would have to go for the one person dying, because in that scenario you know nothing about any of the people and it's quite logical to say that five lives are worth more than one, although that one life is still worth a lot.
Saying "murder is murder" is putting women who get raped and impregnated, then choose to get an abortion, in the same category as a terrorist. Whether you want to do that or not, that is what it is.
I agree.
I'm absolutely abortion-is-ok in the sense that I am in favour of law changes that make abortions safer and prevent women from being abused/victimised :)
Sorry, got you mixed up with someone else :)
is it as simple as "Abortion is legal at any point under any circumstance?" No, I personally don't think so, but yeah - Definitely I'm in the abortion-is-ok camp :)
Why do you think it is ok, though?
-
Do I think abortion should be allowed? No
Do I think abortion is murder? Yes
If you think abortion is bad since its murder.. let me ask you a few q's
- Is killing terrorists bad?
- Is killing rapists bad?
- Should gun man who go on rampages be killed?
- Should child beaters be killed?
-
Completely agree with your point on how abortion is murder. There is no dispute in my opinion for that. It is the ending of the workings of a human life.
Where I find the conflict is whether permitting the act of abortion is justifiable. I think the idea of the lesser of two evils applies here. If a circumstance presented itself whereby the mothers life was in danger then I would see abortion as the more "humane" option to choose. Another example would be if some woman accidentally got pregnant and wanted an abortion. I would see that as immoral and would deny it.
Do I think abortion should be allowed? No
Do I think abortion is murder? Yes
Do I think abortion is as bad as a terrorist? No. I think it's unfair to draw that comparison, while they're both in essence the ending of a human life one is with more malicious intent then the other and therefore considered a greater evil.
Interesting discussion ya'll
Agree with most of what you said :)
Agreed as well. If nothing is going to stop those wanting abortions you may as well let them do it safely and reduce the risks. It's an immoral act but doing it properly is the less evil practice imo
I don't think we should encourage it, though. Giving women more access to abortion clinics will only make it easier for them to get abortions, probably resulting in more dead babies. It should be discouraged, not encouraged.
Ok I'm going to bed now because I need to sleep but I'll be back tomorrow :)
If you think abortion is bad since its murder.. let me ask you a few q's
- Is killing terrorists bad?
- Is killing rapists bad?
- Should gun man who go on rampages be killed?
- Should child beaters be killed?
I'll just add my 2 cents while I'm still here - personally, I think no, no, yes, no (they should be jailed, assuming they haven't killed the child). Thing is, terrorists, rapists, gunmen and childbeaters have done something wrong, whereas a foetus has literally done none of these things.
It hasn't murdered anyone.
It hasn't bombed a city.
It hasn't beat a child or went on a shooting rampage. Therefore this comparison doesn't really work. We should compare abortion to the killing of an absolutely innocent being, who has committed no crime. So let me ask you this:
Is it ok for a mother to kill her three year old child, if they are living in poverty and she cannot afford to care for the child? After all, what I've heard a lot of people say here is that death is better than a life in bad circumstances.
-
I'll talk about your comments tomorrow, but before I sleep, I want to ask one opinion of you, geminii:
What's your opinion of the ethics of suicide?
-
I'll just add my 2 cents while I'm still here - personally, I think no, no, yes, no (they should be jailed, assuming they haven't killed the child). Thing is, terrorists, rapists, gunmen and childbeaters have done something wrong, whereas a foetus has literally done none of these things.
It hasn't murdered anyone.
It hasn't bombed a city.
It hasn't beat a child or went on a shooting rampage. Therefore this comparison doesn't really work. We should compare abortion to the killing of an absolutely innocent being, who has committed no crime. So let me ask you this:
Is it ok for a mother to kill her three year old child, if they are living in poverty and she cannot afford to care for the child? After all, what I've heard a lot of people say here is that death is better than a life in bad circumstances.
Fair answer, and fairly consistent if I say so myself.
You do propose a good question and I agree with what other say (that is that it is okay). I've seen documentaries where kids live awful lives and the babies die a slow painful death, diseases, hunger, dissentry, you name it.
-
Agree with most of what you said :)
I don't think we should encourage it, though. Giving women more access to abortion clinics will only make it easier for them to get abortions, probably resulting in more dead babies. It should be discouraged, not encouraged.
Ok I'm going to bed now because I need to sleep but I'll be back tomorrow :)
I'll just add my 2 cents while I'm still here - personally, I think no, no, yes, no (they should be jailed, assuming they haven't killed the child). Thing is, terrorists, rapists, gunmen and childbeaters have done something wrong, whereas a foetus has literally done none of these things.
It hasn't murdered anyone.
It hasn't bombed a city.
It hasn't beat a child or went on a shooting rampage. Therefore this comparison doesn't really work. We should compare abortion to the killing of an absolutely innocent being, who has committed no crime. So let me ask you this:
Is it ok for a mother to kill her three year old child, if they are living in poverty and she cannot afford to care for the child? After all, what I've heard a lot of people say here is that death is better than a life in bad circumstances.
No it is not okay. I see it as whilst death may be the easier and better option it eliminates any chance of hope. It is not okay by any means. I can understand the motive behind it but it does not make it okay. Same for abortions.
-
I'll talk about your comments tomorrow, but before I sleep, I want to ask one opinion of you, geminii:
What's your opinion of the ethics of suicide?
Not geminii but I'll answer it because I'm bored.
Against it. You're giving hope up. While you may be in a unfit state you still have the ability to impact another persons life. As long as somebody is alive they should continuously strive to make an impact. A person who is in a hospital bed will directly affect those surrounding.
Is it fair to compare voluntary euthanasia with suicide?
-
As long as somebody is alive they should continuously strive to make an impact.
I love this sentiment - but it's just not the case. Even people in a well state of mind don't always strive to make an impact, and I think it's unfair to expect people dealing with traumas and torments that are so internalised and difficult to comprehend.
-
Saying "murder is murder" is putting women who get raped and impregnated, then choose to get an abortion, in the same category as a terrorist. Whether you want to do that or not, that is what it is.
I agree.
I'm actually dumbfounded by this comment. I'm trying so hard to be respectful here, but irrespective of whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, that statement is just so incredibly simplistic. According to this logic, a 13-year-old who is raped and aborts the result (which at that point is an unconscious cluster of cells) so that they can continue to live "normally" is morally equivalent to an individual who makes a conscious effort to, for no apparent reason other than ideology or a twisted understanding of religion, kill and torture multiple people. I just... :-\
-
I love this sentiment - but it's just not the case. Even people in a well state of mind don't always strive to make an impact, and I think it's unfair to expect people dealing with traumas and torments that are so internalised and difficult to comprehend.
I suppose my perspective is a bit idealistic. I don't think the impact has to directly be as a result of the ill individual though. Like I mentioned, simply their presence may have in influence on those around them.
I wish to say that in my final moment I wish to cling onto life as long as I can without interference but I cannot guarantee anything as I have not experience those levels of pain.
-
Against it. You're giving hope up. While you may be in a unfit state you still have the ability to impact another persons life. As long as somebody is alive they should continuously strive to make an impact. A person who is in a hospital bed will directly affect those surrounding.
Is it fair to compare voluntary euthanasia with suicide?
Impact someone or the people around them in a negative way.
Have you ever seen someones face, when they are constantly visiting someone who is effectively mindless or in terminal pain? It isn't pretty to watch or be around. It is actually painful to see someone be on life support or w/e.
I guess I have some bias in this post as I have seen people pass away in such a manner.
-
Impact someone or the people around them in a negative way.
Have you ever seen someones face, when they are constantly visiting someone who is effectively mindless or in terminal pain? It isn't pretty to watch or be around.
I have been one of those. It is not pretty to watch. It's painful. However the persons presence has impacted me. Being in their presence allows me to reflect and discover upon myself. I would not have wanted to end it any earlier then it did.
When it comes to the discussion of these topics personal bias is always a factor. It's unavoidable really.
-
I'm actually dumbfounded by this comment. I'm trying so hard to be respectful here, but irrespective of whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, that statement is just so incredibly simplistic. According to this logic, a 13-year-old who is raped and aborts the result (which at that point is an unconscious cluster of cells) so that they can continue to live "normally" is morally equivalent to an individual who makes a conscious effort to, for no apparent reason other than ideology or a twisted understanding of religion, kill and torture multiple people. I just... :-\
I agree - Like again, all respect for all due etc etc. It's why we're here. But the fact that you are willing to lump those two groups of people together like that, without any sort of disclaimer or condition on the statement... I think you'd be hard pressed to find even the most passionate of pro-life advocates who would be willing to make that comparison.
-
It was discussed a few pages back I think, but I would just like to jump in here and say that mifepristone (RU486) is not the same as the morning after pill/emergency contraception.
Emergency contraceptive pills basically prevent or delay the release of an egg from the ovary. If a fertilised egg has already implanted in the womb, it will not cause an abortion.
Mifepristone, or RU486, causes a medical abortion - it basically brings on a miscarriage of the foetus, I think by blocking the action of progesterone (progesterone is needed for a pregnancy to be viable).
Have no desires to get involved in a debate but would like to give my 2 cents - abortions will happen whether they are legal or not. It is our responsibility then, I think, to provide an environment in which abortions can happen safely, and in an environment where women are not judged for the choice they are making. Everyone has a universal right to healthcare access.
Someone said earlier that having an abortion can lead to fertility issues later in life, etc. - I would like very much to see you provide some evidence to back up what you said. :)
-
Someone said earlier that having an abortion can lead to fertility issues later in life, etc. - I would like very much to see you provide some evidence to back up what you said. :)
I must have missed that when checking the thread. Can you link me, because I expect appropriate evidence or retraction for a fearmongering claim like that. There is no clear evidence that termination in the abstract will lead to significant fertility problems, except in specific circumstances. The long term safety of the procedure is endorsed by the various professional bodies. I'm sure somebody will tell me it causes breast cancer as well though.
Take it from someone who has done abortion counselling professionally, you people are all banging your heads against a wall. I've never seen people that aren't indifferent to start with, reach an accord on this.
-
Well done all on an interesting thread regarding a morally complicated topic.
All murder is bad, if I think abortion is wrong and then meet people who have had abortions, what am I supposed to do? If I express my opinion, it's bullying according to elysepopplewell.
I think it's quite clearly the case that what you've described is not what Elyse was contending.
There's nothing stopping you from expressing your opinion; you did it in that very post. You're not bullying anybody - you're just expressing your opinion, which is perfectly legitimate and perfectly okay.
But there's clearly a difference between doing that, and expressing one's opinion in an unnecessarily provocative, mean-spirited and aggressive way. Verbally abusing those getting abortions directly outside a medical clinic during a time quite likely to already be traumatic and painful, is simply not okay.
If I don't like your hat, I can say, "I don't like your hat."
But if I wait for you at a hat store as you go about your business of buying hats, and abuse you for the hat you choose, and intentionally make you feel uncomfortable for the sake of it - well, that's just bullying.
-
I'm actually dumbfounded by this comment. I'm trying so hard to be respectful here, but irrespective of whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, that statement is just so incredibly simplistic. According to this logic, a 13-year-old who is raped and aborts the result (which at that point is an unconscious cluster of cells) so that they can continue to live "normally" is morally equivalent to an individual who makes a conscious effort to, for no apparent reason other than ideology or a twisted understanding of religion, kill and torture multiple people. I just... :-\
All I'm hearing here are feelings, you're just saying "I just... :-\" That's not an argument, nor is it a fact, I want a reason why abortions aren't worse than terrorist attacks. The only reason I've been given is this:
Do I think abortion is as bad as a terrorist? No. I think it's unfair to draw that comparison, while they're both in essence the ending of a human life one is with more malicious intent then the other and therefore considered a greater evil.
This is a fair point. However, it's still murder.
Let me ask you three questions:
1. Would the premeditated murder of a woman by her husband be worse than the murder of a child by his father who accidentally ran over him?
2. If a woman and a child were kidnapped, and the kidnapper gave you the chance to save the life of one of them, which one would you choose?
3. If you were given the choice of saving 2 25-year-old adults' lives, or 85,000 3-month-old babies' lives, which one would you choose?
I'll talk about your comments tomorrow, but before I sleep, I want to ask one opinion of you, geminii:
What's your opinion of the ethics of suicide?
Nice question. As someone who suffered from depression, I have considered it however I never really thought about it seriously - and boy am I glad it never came to that.
I'm undecided on elective suicide - I understand someone who may have a terminal illness and is in pain may want to end their own life, and I guess that's their choice - but I certainly wouldn't encourage someone to do it. However in my own head there's that rebuttal again of, if it's not their time, they shouldn't play God and decide to end their own life. But then again that's a religious argument which not everyone would identify with. For the atheists/agnostics out there, what I mean by this is basically close to saying, 'they should let nature take its course'.
I believe that if someone wanted to commit suicide because of depression, I would strongly advise them not to, and I would do my best to convince them otherwise, because depression is often temporary, like in my case, and it really does get better. So I guess for me it depends on the reasoning.
I'm not 'against' suicide or anything. I really dislike it, and I think it should never be an option, and I will do my best to convince someone not to go through with it, but to say I'm against suicide to someone who's considering it might reduce their mental state even more. So I never say I'm 'against' it, per say. I really, really dislike it.
-
All I'm hearing here are feelings, you're just saying "I just... :-\" That's not an argument, nor is it a fact, I want a reason why abortions aren't worse than terrorist attacks.
I feel I've answered this: an unborn baby, especially early in a pregnancy, is very different to someone later in life. Neither they, nor others, are harmed, or have a concept of them as a person.
1. They have no consciousness that experiences life. Thus, taking life away from them cannot cause them pain or loss. They're not "missing out" on anything. There are already 7 billion people experiencing life, it's nothing particularly special, and if you miss out on many blissful moments - seriously, what does that matter, especially when you don't even have the consciousness to realise what you could be missing out on.
Contraception does the exact same thing by stopping the life even beginning - by stopping his sperm fertilising her egg you are destroying the life of poor little Lucinda who would have gone on to have happy relationships and become a politician who promoted environmental sustainability! We don't think like that. It's not rational to think about the lives that could have been, but never were.
2. No one loves them for them. Once they're born, and increasingly as their social circles expand, more and more people grow to love them, and their death would have a huge impact, so killing them at the age of 3 months or 4 years would be very harmful. At this age - they aren't a person yet. No one can even see or feel their existence.
I see zero problem with stopping a life before it starts, and by our reckonings (we count our age and experiences from birth, not conception), "life" hasn't really started before birth.
Once more, the focus is not in creating more lives - how is 7 billion 85000 lives "better" than 7 billion? More important is improving the quality of life of the already existing 7 billion; terrorism is morally wrong, because it reduces the quality of life of those already existing, by injuring them or killing their loved ones.
Let me ask you three questions:
1. Would the premeditated murder of a woman by her husband be worse than the murder of a child by his father who accidentally ran over him?
2. If a woman and a child were kidnapped, and the kidnapper gave you the chance to save the life of one of them, which one would you choose?
3. If you were given the choice of saving 2 25-year-old adults' lives, or 85,000 3-month-old babies' lives, which one would you choose?
1. Obviously. Can't see the relevance.
2. Uncertain.
3. 85,000 3 month old babies. But if we were talking 85,000 unborn and unwanted children, I'd honestly take the 2 25yos.
-
Don't want to jump in too heavily on the question of should you get an abortion or not. Suffice it to say that I am firmly and entirely behind posters such as Elyse, Susie, etc.
I do just quickly want to clarify what it is those who call themselves 'pro-choice' mean. At no point would a single one of us (please correct me if I'm wrong) tell any other human being that they should or should not proceed with an abortion. That is a completely personal choice, and very much depends on your own sense of morality. For instance, Geminii, if abortion were legal you would in no way be 'expected' or 'pressured' in that direction.
Legalising abortion gives the individual the right to make that choice, based on their conception of life, the universe and everything. By legislating against abortion, you are inflicting your values on the rest of society. However, by legalising and regulating, you are not only making the procedure safer and more reliable for those who would find a method by which to perform an abortion anyway, but you are taking away the choice such mothers ought to have.
I think there is an obvious, much deeper philosophical/scientific discussion to be had. Most of what I would have to say has already been said, and I want to really thank those who have made an effort to include facts, data and statistics in what could otherwise be a really complicated issue. However, at it's heart, when we look to decriminalise an act like this, we should ask whether it is more fair to completely ban something that is clearly a contentious issue, or whether we should leave it up to the choice of the individual. I find it hard to believe that anyone would argue that we should aspire to the former.
-
Throwing in a comment on the whole 'abortion v murder' debate, I really don't see how the two can be equated, simply because of the lack of malicious intent that comes with an abortion. In fact, most of the time, for women who make the choice to have an abortion, it will be one of the hardest and most heart-wrenching decisions of their lives. I think to say that it is the equivalent to murder is to completely diminish the emotions associated with an abortion.
I also want to point out that the definition of murder requires there to be both pre-meditation and malicious intent - e.g. policemen or women who kill in the line of duty are not guilty of murder, and I would say that shooting someone probably comes closer to the true definition than a termination at 2-4-6-8-10-12-14 weeks.
I think it's incredibly hard to imagine being in that situation until you are, I consider myself 100% pro-choice but still couldn't tell you the decision I would make if I was in that position. But I also think that to classify it as murder of any kind is an incredibly damaging stance to take in an issue where the emotional and mental health of the women (and men, let's not assume that it's always entirely the women's choice, sometimes it's married couples who cannot afford another child or feel they have reached an age where they cannot raise another baby), is already going to be under strain.
I think for me, personally, the best (or worst) example is to think about a teenage girl who is raped, and makes a decision to terminate a resultant pregnancy. Financially, emotionally, mentally, she has made the decision that she cannot bring that baby into the world. I think that instead of choosing to tell her she has committed murder, she needs our support instead.
-
I must have missed that when checking the thread. Can you link me, because I expect appropriate evidence or retraction for a fearmongering claim like that. There is no clear evidence that termination in the abstract will lead to significant fertility problems, except in specific circumstances. The long term safety of the procedure is endorsed by the various professional bodies. I'm sure somebody will tell me it causes breast cancer as well though.
Take it from someone who has done abortion counselling professionally, you people are all banging your heads against a wall. I've never seen people that aren't indifferent to start with, reach an accord on this.
Sure thing, I was referring to this excerpt from Younem's post on the first page:
Women who have an abortion are significantly more likely to suffer sleep disorders or mental illness like anxiety or depression. Many abortions lead to fertility problems years after the procedure has taken place.
-
I feel I've answered this: an unborn baby, especially early in a pregnancy, is very different to someone later in life. Neither they, nor others, are harmed, or have a concept of them as a person.
When you're killing off a baby - or a bundle of cells, whatever you want to call it - you are harming that 'thing' (in my belief, 'human'). Obviously. Because you are taking away its right to life. You're harming it physically, too - although it may not feel pain, an abortion can be carried out by pulling all of the baby except for its head out of the birth canal, then stabbing it with scissors so that the brain can be vacuumed out. It is literally a human. With a brain, limbs, everything. According to you when is it classified as a human?
1. They have no consciousness that experiences life. Thus, taking life away from them cannot cause them pain or loss. They're not "missing out" on anything. There are already 7 billion people experiencing life, it's nothing particularly special, and if you miss out on many blissful moments - seriously, what does that matter, especially when you don't even have the consciousness to realise what you could be missing out on.
"Thus, taking life away from them cannot cause them pain or loss. They're not "missing out" on anything." - Um, yes, they are missing out on something, just a little thing called, you know, LIFE.
2. No one loves them for them. Once they're born, and increasingly as their social circles expand, more and more people grow to love them, and their death would have a huge impact, so killing them at the age of 3 months or 4 years would be very harmful. At this age - they aren't a person yet. No one can even see or feel their existence.
Why are you measuring the worth of a person by the amount of people who love them? Is an abandoned orphan, then, also worthy of being killed? After all, no one loves them, and that's your justification here, right?
I feel I've answered this: an unborn baby, especially early in a pregnancy, is very different to someone later in life. Neither they, nor others, are harmed, or have a concept of them as a person.
Contraception does the exact same thing by stopping the life even beginning - by stopping his sperm fertilising her egg you are destroying the life of poor little Lucinda who would have gone on to have happy relationships and become a politician who promoted environmental sustainability! We don't think like that. It's not rational to think about the lives that could have been, but never were.
Okay but listen, a sperm isn't a life yet. When conception occurs, that's when a life begins. The baby's sex is determined, it has different DNA to its' parents.
Think about it like this. If you left a sperm by itself without stopping it using contraception, it wouldn't become a baby on its own. If you leave a fertilised egg by itself without abortion, it would likely develop into a baby.
I see zero problem with stopping a life before it starts, and by our reckonings (we count our age and experiences from birth, not conception), "life" hasn't really started before birth.
Yes, if you're considering that we start counting how old someone is from birth. However it's common sense to say that an unborn baby is alive. At a certain stage it has a brain, a beating heart, and can hear outside the womb, and even learn to recognise its' mother's voice.
A baby born prematurely at 30 weeks is considered alive. Is the only thing that makes a baby alive, in your mind, is whether it is out of the womb or not? That's quite ridiculous given a baby just over halfway through the pregnancy could survive if taken out of the womb. So a premature baby at 30 weeks is considered alive, while an unborn baby of a woman who is 30 weeks pregnant isn't?
Once more, the focus is not in creating more lives - how is 7 billion 85000 lives "better" than 7 billion? More important is improving the quality of life of the already existing 7 billion; terrorism is morally wrong, because it reduces the quality of life of those already existing, by injuring them or killing their loved ones.
So now you're insinuating that unborn babies 'don't exist'? What?! Of course an unborn baby exists, what do you mean, like it's not real or something? Are you serious here?
1. Obviously. Can't see the relevance.
2. Uncertain.
3. 85,000 3 month old babies. But if we were talking 85,000 unborn and unwanted children, I'd honestly take the 2 25yos.
1. Think about the victim, not the circumstances of the murder. In one, a child was murdered. In the other, a grown woman was murdered. Although both are bad, I would argue that the child's murder is worse. Of course in this case the father obviously didn't mean to kill his son - however, the loss of a child is much worse than the loss of an adult. The kid was four, the woman was much older. Obviously the child should have been able to live a lot longer than he did, while the woman would have already lived a significant portion of her life. What I'm saying is, it's worse to take the life of a child than an adult. Don't you agree?
Legalising abortion gives the individual the right to make that choice, based on their conception of life, the universe and everything. By legislating against abortion, you are inflicting your values on the rest of society. However, by legalising and regulating, you are not only making the procedure safer and more reliable for those who would find a method by which to perform an abortion anyway, but you are taking away the choice such mothers ought to have.
I don't think any 'mother' ought to have the choice of killing their unborn child. Just because it's unborn, we treat it like it's nothing. Almost no one here is putting themselves in the shoes of the victim, which is something I always do when considering a topic such as this. I put myself in the shoes of a baby, and I think - would I want to be aborted right now? And the answer would obviously be no. I understand that babies are obviously not intelligent enough (yet) to consider such thoughts, but I don't think killing someone without their consent is an okay thing to do. Like, the baby hasn't given you the thumbs up to kill it. It's not like, "yep, no problem mum, you can go ahead and kill me, it's not like I'm alive or exist or anything". No, if the baby had a brain capacity of an older individual, it would obviously not want to have been aborted.
I ask myself this - am I glad my parents didn't abort me? And I think if you all ask yourselves this, the answer would obviously be yes. Because no unborn baby is sitting in the womb, wanting to die. Therefore, it's morally and ethically wrong. So why allow people to do it?
I think there is an obvious, much deeper philosophical/scientific discussion to be had. Most of what I would have to say has already been said, and I want to really thank those who have made an effort to include facts, data and statistics in what could otherwise be a really complicated issue. However, at it's heart, when we look to decriminalise an act like this, we should ask whether it is more fair to completely ban something that is clearly a contentious issue, or whether we should leave it up to the choice of the individual. I find it hard to believe that anyone would argue that we should aspire to the former.
As I said in my answer above, it is wrong to legalise something so morally wrong. If the government of Australia was like, "okay, we're making murder legal, now, because we understand it's a grey area sometimes, and it can be necessary sometimes. It's an issue that requires "much deeper philosophical/scientific discussion" and it's clearly a "contentious issue". Therefore, we will "leave it up to the choice of the individual."" Would that be ok?
I think for me, personally, the best (or worst) example is to think about a teenage girl who is raped, and makes a decision to terminate a resultant pregnancy. Financially, emotionally, mentally, she has made the decision that she cannot bring that baby into the world. I think that instead of choosing to tell her she has committed murder, she needs our support instead.
Less than 1% of all abortions occur as a result of rape. Would you be willing to agree that all other abortions are ok or are you using this as an excuse?
If you want my response to this situation specifically, I believe that the rapist should be emasculated, but that doesn't mean you get to kill babies.
-
Hey All,
The admin team has discussed, and we've decided to lock this thread.
Everyone has had the chance to say their piece and I think everyone who has wanted to say something has had the chance to do so. This is a very sensitive topic (perhaps directly relevant to some people's personal circumstances). In the interest of protecting the wellbeing of all those browsing AN in this busy period, we feel it is best for the discussion to finish here.
Feel free to message me if you have any concerns :)
Pregnancy Counselling Australia: 1300 RESPECT
Lifeline: 13 11 14