View Active Topics          View Your Posts          Latest 100 Topics          Switch to Mobile

Why Abortion is not a simple matter of right or wrong ethics

Discuss Philosophical or Psychological subjects and topics.

Why Abortion is not a simple matter of right or wrong ethics

Postby Scepcop » 27 Jan 2012, 04:06

Someone brought up the topic of abortion on my other forum. So I wrote up this complicated stance on it, which has nothing to do with right or wrong or morality, but with the consequences, logic and effects. Let me know your take on this complicated and sensitive but terrible issue that many women face.

First, some key points:

Don't you don't think forcing a woman to go through an unwanted pregnancy is cruel? Think about that. A man can just run away from an unwanted pregnancy, but a woman is stuck with the child. An unwanted pregnancy forces the parents, especially the woman, to endure 20 years of an unpaid job in which she loses all her freedom and becomes enslaved to another. Would you like someone forcing that upon you?

Outlawing abortion is a stupid thing though. It forces women who want to have abortions to try more dangerous and unsafe underground ways of getting it. If they are going to do it, it should be done safely at least. Nowadays, if they do it early, they only have to take a pill like RU486.

Christian pro-lifers lie though, when they say that abortion is dangerous. In reality, childbirth is far more dangerous and results in far more deaths than abortion does.

Science says that a fetus is not a sentient being. It has no mind, thoughts or consciousness.

Watch this George Carlin video on abortion and the sanctity of life. He makes a lot of good points in it that make sense.



But let's suppose that abortion is wrong and murder. So what? Even if it were morally wrong, that doesn't mean that bringing the child into the world is always the "best decision" for everyone involved. You see, the right thing and the best thing are NOT always the same thing. What if you were a poor Filipino mom, and knew that a child you brought in would become a beggar on the street? Would you want to bring that upon a child? Would being forced to endure a 20 year unpaid job that takes away all your freedom and makes you unhappy be the "best thing" for your life?

You see, anyone can stand up and say "Abortion is wrong". It only takes one second to do that. But what if you were faced with this real life dilemma:

1) Go through with an unwanted pregnancy and be forced to endure a 20 year unpaid job and the total loss of your freedom.
2) Do something morally wrong, but it would free you of #1.

What would you do? Many people, even those against abortion, would choose #2, because it would be the best thing for THEM, whether right or wrong. (But they would try to be discreet about their decision of course) You can't always be moral in every situation. You have to be real sometimes and do what's best for everyone involved. No child ought to grow up unwanted. So why force a bad thing for everyone involved? Think about it.

Abortion is a terrible thing. I'd never want anyone to have to do one. It's better to never have to make such a decision. But faced with the two scenarios above, a lot of people would choose #2, not because it's the right thing, but because it's the best thing for everyone involved, logically speaking.

Besides, if murder is wrong, what about all the insects you've killed? And all the animals you've eaten? Do you condone that too? Are all the people who kill cows and chickens murderers too? What about all the bacteria in your body that your immune system kills? Is that morally wrong too? What about all the semen that comes out after masturbation and dies? What about all the fertilized eggs that come out during menstruation and die? Is all that morally wrong too? Are you a mass murderer when you go through menstruation? Where's the consistency here?

I'm not pro-abortion or pro-life, because the issue is not that simple or black and white. But you gotta look at the reality of what's involved here. Anyone can take a moral stance, but when you are facing dire and permanent consequences, you might just decide to do the "best thing", rather than the "right thing".

Abortion is terrible, but so is an unwanted pregnancy. This is one of the worst issues in life you can face. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario.

PS - Also, on a deeper note: Why does one always have to do what's moral, when God and Mother Nature have no morality at all? Mother Nature kills countless animals, insects and plant life every second. And God allows wars, famines, poverty, disease, hunger, greed, and evil to kill people everyday. He does nothing to stop it. He lets evil people prosper and good people die young. He allows the strong to take advantage of the weak, and the "might is right" principle to rule the world. So if God himself has no morals, why must humans? How can there be any "universal morality code" if God or Mother Nature doesn't follow it? It's a terrible question, I know. Nothing makes sense in this world or life. But for crying out loud, stop pretending that there is some absolute "divine moral code" that exists for all creation.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3258
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: My complicated stance on abortion - Not a black/white is

Postby plodsie » 27 Jan 2012, 21:35

Whether it is sentient or not, you are preventing another human being from being born and that is something a lot of people cannot handle.

What seems to be wrong with abortion is that it has led to the spiralling rise in STD's as more and more people use it as a form of birth control instead of proper protection. I don't think it can be described as anything else now but birth control. People can take that chance knowing that they have a get out clause should a pregnancy occur but an STD can actually cause sterility thereby taking away a woman's right to be a mother when she wishes.

I think we've become desensitized by much of what happens around us. So many people support a woman's right to choose, but very few would take on the role (or wish to be trained to carry out the role) of the actual doctor/clinician who carries them out. If you are pro-abortion then the sight of an abortion being carried out shouldn't really bother you then? As much as the same way people won't watch an animal being slaughtered but will eat it's flesh afterwards.
User avatar
plodsie
 
Posts: 22
Joined: 13 Jan 2012, 19:52
Location: Glasgow, Scotland.

Re: My complicated stance on abortion - Not a black/white is

Postby ProfWag » 27 Jan 2012, 21:49

Scepcop wrote:Let me know your take on this complicated and sensitive but terrible issue that many women face.


Here's my take on your piece. First, you didn't mention adoption at all. There are many families that would love to adopt a child from someone who did not want a child or would be unable to care for it. I'm not saying in this post my opinion on adoption, but if you are going to voice an opinion one way or another, carrying a child full term and then giving it up for adoption is a valid alternative for those in the pro-life circles.
Second, I'm not sure using George Carlin would get you many brownie points in a real debate on abortion.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3846
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: My complicated stance on abortion - Not a black/white is

Postby Scepcop » 01 Feb 2012, 03:21

ProfWag wrote:
Scepcop wrote:Let me know your take on this complicated and sensitive but terrible issue that many women face.


Here's my take on your piece. First, you didn't mention adoption at all. There are many families that would love to adopt a child from someone who did not want a child or would be unable to care for it. I'm not saying in this post my opinion on adoption, but if you are going to voice an opinion one way or another, carrying a child full term and then giving it up for adoption is a valid alternative for those in the pro-life circles.
Second, I'm not sure using George Carlin would get you many brownie points in a real debate on abortion.


Because that argument has been debunked. First, a woman can't just give up her baby for adoption. Ask any woman why, if you need an explanation. You are really naive. Plus, some women don't want to go through 9 months of pain and trouble. Also, not everyone lives in America. Women in third world countries cannot give up their babies for adoption because there aren't enough parents that will want to adopt all the unwanted children.

What does it matter if I quote George Carlin or anyone else? If the person made valid sensible points, then that's all that matters. Why are you so snobbish and petty and focused on the discrediting everyone you don't like?
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3258
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: My complicated stance on abortion - Not a black/white is

Postby Scepcop » 01 Feb 2012, 03:26

plodsie wrote:Whether it is sentient or not, you are preventing another human being from being born and that is something a lot of people cannot handle.

What seems to be wrong with abortion is that it has led to the spiralling rise in STD's as more and more people use it as a form of birth control instead of proper protection. I don't think it can be described as anything else now but birth control. People can take that chance knowing that they have a get out clause should a pregnancy occur but an STD can actually cause sterility thereby taking away a woman's right to be a mother when she wishes.

I think we've become desensitized by much of what happens around us. So many people support a woman's right to choose, but very few would take on the role (or wish to be trained to carry out the role) of the actual doctor/clinician who carries them out. If you are pro-abortion then the sight of an abortion being carried out shouldn't really bother you then? As much as the same way people won't watch an animal being slaughtered but will eat it's flesh afterwards.


Good points. However, STD's are mostly media fear mongering. The truth is, most STD's are very treatable. The most common ones, such as urinary tract infection (UTI) and gonorrhea, are cured with antibiotics. I've met many men who live in Thailand and the Philippines who have slept with hundreds of bar girls, yet have no major STD problems other than UTI or gonorrhea. The reality of it is not as bad as the media portrays. If you travel more, you realize that the media's portrayal of things is mostly illusion.

Btw, doctors don't have to carry out abortions. They only have to dispense pills such as RU486, if it's done early on. A series of 2 or 3 pills is enough to do a complete abortion. But I get what you mean.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3258
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: Why Abortion is not a simple matter of right or wrong et

Postby Scepcop » 01 Feb 2012, 03:34

Alright I just wrote a whole essay on this topic. Here it is. I hope you find it interesting and gives you something to think about.

Why Abortion Is Not A Simple Matter of Right or Wrong Ethics

To those who believe that "Abortion is wrong, it is murder" let me try to open your mind to a larger perspective. I am not going to present any standard pro-choice arguments here about a woman's right to choose and do what they want with their own body, etc. I am not going to tell you that you are wrong either, but show you that this is not a simple black and white issue of ethics, by giving you a lot more to consider. To really understand this issue, you have to understand the consequences, outcomes and effects involved from a larger picture perspective. Also, when you realize that your "moral logic" is inconsistent and largely subjective, relative and situational, you will realize that this is a complex gray area issue, not a black and white one.

So for a few minutes, please turn off your moral righteousness and ethical prejudices, and try to look at this issue sympathetically and rationally, from a larger perspective, as I lay out the decision tree and consequences below.

Let me first say that an unwanted pregnancy is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario. It's a decision between two negative choices. It's one of the most terrible situations in life that one can possible face, and it's better never to have to face it.

No one is really "pro-abortion". Abortion is a horrible and gruesome thing, but so is going through with an unwanted pregnancy. Both are terrible. The only real questions at stake for those involved here are: Which of the two negative choices is more tolerable for me? Which can I live with better? Which will have a lesser damaging effect on my life? Which is in my best interest?

You see, those involved in an unwanted pregnancy faces only two real choices:

1. Do something that most people feel is "wrong" by getting an abortion, feel guilty and sad about it for a few weeks, and then resume your normal life again afterward.
2. Go through with an unwanted pregnancy because others say "abortion is wrong". Then be forced to commit to a 20+ year unpaid job that you can't get out of, which will imprison you and takes away your freedom. And during the process, be leeched and drained of your time, energy, resources and emotions - essentially suffering 20+ years of regret and imprisonment.


A person faced with the dire decision above will NOT be concerned with "Which is the right morally correct choice?" They would be asking these key important questions:

Which of the two negative choices can I live with better? Which is more tolerable? Which would damage my life less? Which is better for my self-interest and goals?

And so would you! Anyone can preach morals, but when you are faced with those two dire choices, you will be thinking about the consequences to yourself, not the morals. Now if you KNOW that you absolutely CANNOT tolerate #2, then you might go with #1, regardless of the "morality" of it or condemnation from others (whose freedom is not at stake). So for you, #1 might be the more rational/logical choice. It's not a right or wrong issue. It's just a choice you have to make.

Now, one might realize that #1 is far more tolerable and manageable than #2. So by choosing #1, they would be making a rational/logical choice for themselves - not a moral one. Suppose you were a poor mom in a third world country who already had kids and you accidentally got pregnant again, and you knew that you could NOT afford to support another kid cause, and neither would you have the energy for it. Well in that case, choosing #1 might be a more rational choice for you that is best for all involved.

You see, when there are dire consequences at stake, not everyone cares about moral condemnation from others anyway. You can't expect everyone to make simple "morally correct" choices when there are serious, permanent and overwhelming consequences at stake. In reality, when survival, self-preservation and imprisonment comes into play, morals usually take a backseat. This is because our survival instinct is at the root of our behaviors. It is first and foremost in all living beings. Moral ethics, which were developed to allow humans to get along with others, are secondary. So it is irrational and unrealistic to expect that people will place morality and ethics above their survival instinct. You have to understand that.

That's why with the abortion issue, sometimes the survival instinct (or selfish instinct, whatever you want to call it) can kick in and take precedence over the moral issue. The universe does not live by a "moral code". If it did, nature would not set up an animal kingdom of predators and prey, or allow volcanoes, tsunamis and hurricanes to kill people, or allow disease to infect people and animals, etc.

Remember, God and Mother Nature have no morals either - about letting animals, insects and plants die every second, or allowing innocent people to suffer, or allowing good/innocent people to die young and evil people to thrive and prosper either. So there does not seem to be any objective "divine moral code" that governs all of creation. Morality is something that humans create, not some universal divine law that governs the universe.

Sometimes you gotta do what's best for you. As already explained, survival and self-preservation often takes precedent over "morally correct choices". It's not right or wrong; it's just reality. No one likes to admit that publicly, but it's true. There is no perfect world in which the best choices are always the morally correct ones.

I know that doesn't sound good. But you have to be realistic here. No one (at least not most people) can always make the morally correct choice in every decision and action. No one is a saint. But we are all hypocrites in that we hold others to the standards of a saint which we ourselves do not live up to. Everyone (at least most) has skeletons in the closet that would bring moral condemnation from others if exposed out in the open.

As the saying goes: "People do not like to do what's right. They like to TELL others to do what's right."

For example, let's take a hypothetical situation: Suppose Bill Gates accidentally deposited $500,000 into your bank account, and he never noticed it. Now, would you contact him and tell him about it, or would you think: "$500k to him is nothing. It's just pocket change to him. He'll never notice or care that he's missing that amount. I need it A LOT MORE than he does." Of course, publicly you might say that you'd report it because it's the "right and morally correct choice". But in REALITY and PRIVATELY, you KNOW you would probably keep it under the rationale and excuse: "I need this money more than he does. And besides, it was his mistake, not mine." Most people would probably do that, and never tell anyone about it of course. They would never post about it on a forum and try to debate the "morality" of it with others either, because they know that everyone would condemn them. Most of you KNOW that YOU WOULD just keep it, because in this scenario, your "survival instinct" would override your "moral instinct". The benefits and gains would overshadow the "moral ethics" (which bring you nothing), especially if you were badly in need of money. So stop pretending that you are all saints who hold other people to the standard of a saint. You are hypocrites and you know it!

Besides, most of you are also hypocrites for condoning the slaughter of cows, chickens and pigs, (and eating them) while condemning the slaughter of dogs and cats. And you are hypocrites for condoning hunters who shoot ducks and deer. Who are you to decide which life of which species is sacred and valuable, and which isn't? Should an advanced alien race have a right to eat you for food too? Just because you are human doesn't mean that human life is the most sacred thing in the objective universe. A higher more advanced race than you might think otherwise. There's simply no consistency in your thinking and moral standards.

If killing were morally wrong, then those who kill and eat animals would be punished by karma and universal retribution right away, wouldn't they? Yet many meat eaters live long and healthy lives. Why is that? If no "divine punishment" from God or karma comes down on those who kill and eat animals, why would it on those who do abortions?

If killing were ethically wrong and punishable by karma, then is your immune system guilty of killing all the harmful bacteria that it kills everyday? Should karma punish you and your immune system?

If killing was a sin punishable by karma or God, then how come George Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, who started the Iraq War and killed over a million people, have gone unpunished by the universe, and are wealthier than ever? How come the US officials who started the Vietnam War lived long and healthy lives? How come Joseph Stalin, who killed more people than Hitler, lived to a ripe old age? Yet, Robert Kennedy, a man with great compassion for others, gets gunned down and dies young? Where is all the karmic retribution or divine justice in that?

If you are a man, every time you ejaculate, you kill thousands of sperm, even during sex. Does that make you a mass murderer? Should "divine punishment" come upon you for that? If you are a woman, every time you go through menstruation, you kill thousands of fertilized eggs. Does that make you a mass murderer? Should "divine punishment" befall you for that?

Where's the consistency?! If the actions above are not punished by some God or karma of "divine moral law", then why would those who do abortions be?

See this clip from a show by the late George Carlin where he makes these same arguments and ridicules the inconsistency of our "moral logic" and "sanctity of life":



So you see, under casual scrutiny, the "moral logic" of most humans falls apart and is shown to be inconsistent, subjective, situational and relative. Human morality is not some "divine law" handed down by God. It is a code of ethics humans created to help ensure the survival and cooperation of our species. The "moral conscience" you have in your subconscious that makes you feel guilty when you do something wrong is not something that God put into you. It's the result of the moral behaviors and beliefs of all your ancestors that have become ingrained into your DNA. It's the same reason why a kitten is born with an expert instinct to catch mice, and a knowing of what it can eat and what it can't. It's the same way animals know that they are supposed to run from predators. God didn't teach them to. It's simply ingrained into their DNA as an instinct from the past behavior of their ancestors.

This is why our survival instinct tends to override our moral instinct. Our need to survive comes first and foremost. It is the root instinct of all life and comes before all other instincts. It also precedes any "moral code" we develop to get along with others. So naturally, when survival and morals come into conflict, we will choose survival. As the saying goes, "One can only have morals if one can afford them."

Finally, don't you don't think forcing a woman to go through an unwanted pregnancy is cruel? Think about that. A man can just run away from an unwanted pregnancy, but a woman is stuck with the child. An unwanted pregnancy forces the parent to endure 20 years of an unpaid job in which she loses all her freedom and becomes enslaved to another. Would you like someone forcing that upon you?

So I hope you see now that this abortion issue is not a simple matter of black and white ethics, but a complex issue that involves a lot more than basic morality. I hope these points help you to see it from a larger perspective, so that you can show some sympathy, understanding and rationality in the matter.

Thank you for reading. You may now switch your "moral righteousness and ethical prejudices" back on (if you really turned it off that is).

Addendum: A Few Subpoints

- Outlawing abortion is a stupid thing. Women who are intent on having abortions will resort to try more dangerous and unsafe underground ways of getting it. If they are going to do it, it should be done safely at least. Nowadays, if they do it early, they only have to take a series of pills such as RU486.

- Science and the Journal of Geriatrics say that a fetus is not a sentient being. It has no mind, thoughts or consciousness. You can look this up.

- Christian pro-lifers lie when they say that abortion is dangerous. In reality, childbirth is far more dangerous and results in far more deaths than abortion does. But of course, they don't want you to know that because it doesn't support their side.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3258
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: My complicated stance on abortion - Not a black/white is

Postby ProfWag » 01 Feb 2012, 03:55

Scepcop wrote:Because that argument has been debunked. First, a woman can't just give up her baby for adoption. Ask any woman why, if you need an explanation. You are really naive. Plus, some women don't want to go through 9 months of pain and trouble. Also, not everyone lives in America. Women in third world countries cannot give up their babies for adoption because there aren't enough parents that will want to adopt all the unwanted children.

May I ask what has been debunked about adoption? When you say a woman can't just give up her baby for adoption, do you mean legally or morally (their feelings towards a newborn child)?
I mention it because if you are going to write an essay on abortion, adoption is an important part of a discussion--even if your take is that adoption has been "debunked."
Scepcop wrote:What does it matter if I quote George Carlin or anyone else? If the person made valid sensible points, then that's all that matters. Why are you so snobbish and petty and focused on the discrediting everyone you don't like?

Again, you asked for our take on your piece. I love, love, loved George Carlin. That doesn't mean he's an expert on abortion and what you consider a valid, sensible point may be neither valid nor sensible to your reader. He's presenting his view which is fine, funny, and all that, but as I stated, he's not someone to be quoted in the context of your stance on any subject (unless it's comedy, of course.)
Rather than get all testy with me Scepcop, I was actually trying to be helpful with your content. I was a college professor who's graded many an essay, ya' know.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3846
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: My complicated stance on abortion - Not a black/white is

Postby Scepcop » 01 Feb 2012, 17:49

ProfWag wrote:
Scepcop wrote:Because that argument has been debunked. First, a woman can't just give up her baby for adoption. Ask any woman why, if you need an explanation. You are really naive. Plus, some women don't want to go through 9 months of pain and trouble. Also, not everyone lives in America. Women in third world countries cannot give up their babies for adoption because there aren't enough parents that will want to adopt all the unwanted children.

May I ask what has been debunked about adoption? When you say a woman can't just give up her baby for adoption, do you mean legally or morally (their feelings towards a newborn child)?
I mention it because if you are going to write an essay on abortion, adoption is an important part of a discussion--even if your take is that adoption has been "debunked."
Scepcop wrote:What does it matter if I quote George Carlin or anyone else? If the person made valid sensible points, then that's all that matters. Why are you so snobbish and petty and focused on the discrediting everyone you don't like?

Again, you asked for our take on your piece. I love, love, loved George Carlin. That doesn't mean he's an expert on abortion and what you consider a valid, sensible point may be neither valid nor sensible to your reader. He's presenting his view which is fine, funny, and all that, but as I stated, he's not someone to be quoted in the context of your stance on any subject (unless it's comedy, of course.)
Rather than get all testy with me Scepcop, I was actually trying to be helpful with your content. I was a college professor who's graded many an essay, ya' know.


Dude, why do you even have to ask? Do you live in the real world? Ask any woman you know why they can't just give up their baby for adoption. It's common sense. I don't need to explain it.

You are using Christian fundamentalist arguments.

If George Carlin isn't an expert, then who is? This is a moral dilemma, not one that can be solved by an expert. George Carlin made a lot of sensible points in his shows. He used comedy to make a lot of brilliant and true points that make sense. His arguments are the issue here. Why can't you see that? He makes a lot better points than YOU do, ProfWag.

There is nothing wrong with quoting him if he made an excellent point. Are you saying that no one can make an excellent logical point unless they have credentials from established institutions? lol

You would suck as a professor. You are way too biased, narrow and subjective. You have no objectivity or rationality in your thinking at all. And your arguments are petty and small minded.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3258
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: My complicated stance on abortion - Not a black/white is

Postby plodsie » 01 Feb 2012, 19:53

Scepcop wrote:
Good points. However, STD's are mostly media fear mongering. The truth is, most STD's are very treatable. The most common ones, such as urinary tract infection (UTI) and gonorrhea, are cured with antibiotics. I've met many men who live in Thailand and the Philippines who have slept with hundreds of bar girls, yet have no major STD problems other than UTI or gonorrhea. The reality of it is not as bad as the media portrays. If you travel more, you realize that the media's portrayal of things is mostly illusion.




The official statistics (even those who aren't official - look it up in google) state that Chlamydia is rising at a very alarming rate. What is worse is that it shows no symptoms, so those infected can pass it on without even knowing it. My point is that abortion whether right or wrong has contributed to that rise as men and women rely on it as "protection" from pregnancy and do not protect themselves from STDs.
User avatar
plodsie
 
Posts: 22
Joined: 13 Jan 2012, 19:52
Location: Glasgow, Scotland.

Re: My complicated stance on abortion - Not a black/white is

Postby ProfWag » 01 Feb 2012, 22:01

Scepcop wrote:You would suck as a professor. You are way too biased, narrow and subjective. You have no objectivity or rationality in your thinking at all. And your arguments are petty and small minded.

Again Winston, I was trying to be helpful to you. I really don't care if you use my suggestions or not, but this type of response was unnecessary in my opinion. You obviously spend a lot of time with your writings and from where I sit, you would be taken much more seriously by your readers if you consider all aspects of a subject.
There were several one-sided points in your essay. You state to me that it's obvious why women can't give a baby up for adoption, yet it remains a valid alternative from those in the pro-life camp. So, it may be obvious to you (and me), but it may not be obvious to many of your readers and I stand firm on my critique that if you address abortion, you should address adoption as well--even if your stance is that women become attached to newborns and usually fnd it dificult to let a baby go after carrying a child full term.

http://www.ithaca.edu/faculty/cduncan/230/adoption.htm
http://socyberty.com/issues/adoption-is ... -abortion/
http://www.crisispregnancy.com/
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3846
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: My complicated stance on abortion - Not a black/white is

Postby Craig Browning » 02 Feb 2012, 07:20

plodsie wrote:Whether it is sentient or not, you are preventing another human being from being born and that is something a lot of people cannot handle.

What seems to be wrong with abortion is that it has led to the spiralling rise in STD's as more and more people use it as a form of birth control instead of proper protection. I don't think it can be described as anything else now but birth control. People can take that chance knowing that they have a get out clause should a pregnancy occur but an STD can actually cause sterility thereby taking away a woman's right to be a mother when she wishes.

I think we've become desensitized by much of what happens around us. So many people support a woman's right to choose, but very few would take on the role (or wish to be trained to carry out the role) of the actual doctor/clinician who carries them out. If you are pro-abortion then the sight of an abortion being carried out shouldn't really bother you then? As much as the same way people won't watch an animal being slaughtered but will eat it's flesh afterwards.



Ok, I'm not picking on you directly here, plodsie but when you equated the rise in STDs to Abortion legalization I couldn't help but feel I needed to speak up. . .

Firstly, the rise in STDs is probably related more to the lack of morality being taught and accepted in today's world; the rampant promotion of "do as you will" ideology found in Games, Tv shows, movies and even those paperback romance novels. These probably have far more to do with encouragement of casual sex than knowing you can go toss the fetus in the trash should an "accident' happen. Frankly, I don't support the idea of Abortion as a contraceptive, especially in those instances of young ladies that are constantly getting knocked-up knowing they can git rid of "the kid" without much hassle. . . only to go through heavy psychological grief years later (quite common with abortions as well as when the child is given up by the mother for adoption. Many suicides for women over 40 stem from guilt tied to these actions as do self-destructive patterns like drug & alcohol abuse). BUT, not all women go through the intense grief noted, many do well as the result of understanding why the abortion had to be done be it age, rape, or threat to the mother's own life. . . on the other side we have the arrogance of families via which forced abortions are done so as to salvage a family reputation and standing in the community.

I'm very much supportive of pro-choice but only with very strict and enforced parameters. On the other hand I have a question for all the Pro-Life folks; what good is there in having this child come into a world where it is not wanted, where it instantly becomes a tax burden for the nation and more than likely will end up in and out of "the system" (including prison) starting in around age 8 or nine forward for the next 40+ years. Why is it ok to create this "burden" on society? Aren't you part of the political movement that wants lower taxes and less government support programs like SSI/Welfare?

Secondly, if these kids are to be born, are you willing to pick up the ticket and raise the kid in order to keep them out of the more or less proven course of events noted above? Last I checked churches stopped supporting children's homes and work houses long ago BUT, to sustain these unwanted children and keep them from becoming a major burden on society as a whole, it is only logical that each Pro-Life organization sustain the facilities that will give each child a healthy and productive sense of home, self-identity, education, etc. To my mind, this is the least you must do otherwise you have no honest ground upon which to stand; especially given the fact that there has always been a means by which to be rid of unwanted pregnancies and though I'd have to do some serious research, I believe there are "remedies" described in the old testament (most likely presented as a way to "ease" the birthing process. But every midwife worth her weight, knows that feeding a young pregnant lass strawberries and raspberries during her first trimester can quietly result in miscarriage.)

Biologically the embryo is a person but according to most religious traditions, the soul does not become a part of that entity until the first breath, some traditions even claiming that the soul does not enter until the child's first birthday. The logic to this stems from how short life expectancy was in ancient times so the soul would wait, ensuring that the body was strong enough to survive. Regardless, what is being disposed off prior to the third trimester ISN'T by philosophic definition, "Human" or "Sentient" -- it is a soulless thing -- a "Golem" for lack of a better term. . . even biblically it is often referred to as FOOD (here you go -- http://www.urbanmyths.com/index.php?/Food/fetus-soup-anyone-the-myth-of-chinese-baby-soup.html WARNING: gross stuff! --) then again, there is that footnote in the New Testament that places a man's off-spring under the same heading as all other livestock up until the males have "Matured" and the females have their first Mencius. . . then again, the females were used as currency in those days, still are in certain circles and cultures.

Wow! There's a lot to weigh here. The irony is however, the folks that support the Pro-Choice angle around the argument . . . well, a large portion of these people, should be on the other side of the fence because of their New Age/Metaphysical beliefs -- when someone aborts a child that was assigned to them they are creating negative karma -- a debt to the soul they just refused to allow to know new life. While this issue has several variants to it, the fact still remains that those who believe in reincarnation would logically be pro-life vs. pro-choice, even though the latter is technically valid for other reasons (we create our own circumstances based on personal decisions). I just find it curious that so many of the people claiming such a spiritual perspective don't recognize this when they promote the pro-choice message; then again, it would seem that neither side of the argument has paused and considered the greater picture and how their position can create serious negatives that encroach on the lives of everyone. 8-)
User avatar
Craig Browning
 
Posts: 1526
Joined: 13 Feb 2010, 05:20
Location: Northampton, MA

Re: Why Abortion is not a simple matter of right or wrong et

Postby ProfWag » 02 Feb 2012, 22:45

Though I normally don't like to get too involved in a debate such as this, I'll also chime in and say I'm very pro-choice as well. And Craig, your recognition of the irony is pretty accurate. From a Sociology standpoint, it just help confirm that many people don't stop to think of their own beliefs, but rather what those whom they respect suggest to them what should be believed.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3846
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Why Abortion is not a simple matter of right or wrong et

Postby Craig Browning » 03 Feb 2012, 04:16

ProfWag wrote:Though I normally don't like to get too involved in a debate such as this, I'll also chime in and say I'm very pro-choice as well. And Craig, your recognition of the irony is pretty accurate. From a Sociology standpoint, it just help confirm that many people don't stop to think of their own beliefs, but rather what those whom they respect suggest to them what should be believed.


My point exactly ;)

Though I've seen children (literally 8 year olds and up) disowned by their ubber-religious parents because the kid was caught "playing doctor" with another kid (especially when it's the same gender) I still have to ask the religious homophobes what they would do if and when one of their own children come out of the proverbial closet and call them on their crap?

Granted, they typically deny that such would be possible when a child is raised in a "proper" Christian environment but guess what. . . many a preacher's kid has fooled around in the house of worship itself on more than a few occasions and that goes for the overly eager heterosexuals as well (male & females alike). You can't subdue human nature or "Nature" itself by bombarding someone with religious ideas, guilt, etc. in that what you end up with will be. . .

    1.) The viscous Homophobes like Rick Santourum (can't wait until his closet gets opened; I'm betting it will) or any number of evangelists who've been found it.

    2.) Chronic Alcoholics & Drug Addicts who can't seem to know a happy "family life" a.k.a. multiple divorces, and closet antics (a.k.a. Park & Toilet Queens . . . the sort that have lurid impersonal sex in obscure locations).

    3.) The predators & molesters; adults who seem to have it altogether on the outside but are predatory, using their fame, social position & influence as a way to intimidate their victims. This would include your Michael Jackson and Televangelist types as well as business world VIPs.

    4.) Teen/Young Adult Suicides or attempted Suicides. Needless to say this is often preluded by obvious depression, reclusiveness/social withdraw & isolation, and even a broken heart when it comes to being rejected by someone they are attracted to or worse, being pushed out by their family & friends for being gay or whatever the case may prove to be.

This is just a small example when it comes to the damage the more exaggerated modes of religious practice/excuse making & prejudices, create. Again, we're looking at tremendous burdens on the whole of society let alone, if we allowed them to cling to biblical law, we'd be looking at countless murders by stoning or mutilations (castration) in that this is the biblical remedy for all sexual transgressions including any situation in which the female enjoys being topped (enjoying sex proves she's a slut and not disgusted by the act of being dominated by the male. . . an idea I simply can't comprehend, personally.)

When we apply logic and reality to religious ideas and pseudo-morality the religious thinking fails and fails miserably. The outcome almost always gives to society a greater sense of crime, burden and general loss.

One I used to get off on back in the 80s & 90s centered on the abomination (according to God) of women that painted their lips and eyes and yet, you can't find a single evangelists wife on TV that don't look like a Ringling Brothers Clown or L.A. Drag Queen they wear so much grease paint. Even the male "star" of such programs is wearing base, eyeliner and a fake tan most of the time, not to forget the "perfect hair" (and hair pieces).

Bottom line is, they just don't get it! Nor are they willing to deal with the beam in their own eye first, rather than complaining and condemn others because they have a small sliver in their eye :roll:
User avatar
Craig Browning
 
Posts: 1526
Joined: 13 Feb 2010, 05:20
Location: Northampton, MA

Re: Why Abortion is not a simple matter of right or wrong et

Postby Arouet » 03 Feb 2012, 10:34

I'm sorry, I know it's obnoxious to head into a thread and ask why people are talking about a topic - but really, abortion? Why are we talking about this on this site? I'm sure we've all talked about abortion a gazillion times. I just don't have it in me to do it again!

/obnoxious rant.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Why Abortion is not a simple matter of right or wrong et

Postby ProfWag » 03 Feb 2012, 21:45

Arouet wrote:I'm sorry, I know it's obnoxious to head into a thread and ask why people are talking about a topic - but really, abortion? Why are we talking about this on this site? I'm sure we've all talked about abortion a gazillion times. I just don't have it in me to do it again!

/obnoxious rant.

Because Scepcop brought it up. I can't remember when he posted something pertaining to the paranormal (or 9/11 for that matter)
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3846
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Next

Return to Philosophy / Psychology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest